Ex Parte LeusslerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201814112580 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/112,580 10/18/2013 Christoph Leussler 24737 7590 06/04/2018 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus A venue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2011P00184WOUS 5006 EXAMINER WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3737 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): patti. demichele@Philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com katelyn.mulroy@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPH LEUSSLER Appeal2017-007900 1 Application 14/112,580 Technology Center 3700 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. 1 The Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-007900 Application 14/112,580 The invention relates generally to an applicator for magnetic- resonance imaging-guided deposition of thermal energy within tissue of a body of a patient. Spec. 1, 11. 2--4. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A thermal treatment applicator for deposition of thermal energy within tissue of a body of a patient in a radio frequency field generated by a magnetic resonance device, the thermal treatment applicator comprising: a plurality of radio frequency antennae configured to radiate a radio frequency electromagnetic field toward the body; and a plurality of radio frequency power amplifiers configured to supply radio frequency signals to the radio frequency antennae, respectively, each radio frequency power amplifier comprising a transistor and an output matching network configured to supply said radio frequency signals to the respective radio frequency antenna and to transform an output impedance of the transistor into a low impedance value, wherein the radio frequency power amplifiers are connected directly to the radio frequency antennae via the output matching networks respectively associated with the radio frequency power amplifiers, and wherein the radio frequency power amplifiers and the radio frequency antennae are integrated within an integrated module, and wherein each radio frequency antenna comprises a PIN diode switch for selectively connecting to the respective radio frequency power amplifier within the integrated module. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-152, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Hancock (US 2010/0036369 Al, pub. Feb. 11, 2010) and Delannoy et al. (US 5,284,144, iss. Feb. 8, 1994) (hereinafter "Delannoy"). 2 Although the statement of rejection omits claim 15, the analysis addresses the claim. See Answer 6-8. 2 Appeal2017-007900 Application 14/112,580 Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Hancock, Delannoy, and Atalar et al. (US 2009/0171421 Al, pub. July 2, 2009) (hereinafter "Atalar"). Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Hancock, Delannoy, and Krockel et al. (US 2004/0199070 Al, pub. Oct. 7, 2004) (hereinafter "Krockel''). We REVERSE. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3. 5-9. 11-15. 17. and 18 Each of independent claims 1, 5, and 11 recites both an output matching network and a PIN diode switch between an amplifier and an antenna. We are persuaded by the Appellant's argument that: Delannoy et al. teaches a PIN diode switch arranged between a signal generator and a power amplifier, e.g., along with a blanking circuit and a T filter, apparently in an attempt to prevent damage to an MRI preamplifier. This does not teach an RF antenna including a PIN diode for selectively connecting the RF antenna to the RF power amplifier (the PIN diode thus being arranged between the RF antenna and the RF power amplifier), as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds Hancock discloses an output matching network in its Abstract and at paragraph 53. Answer 3. Hancock discloses "[t]o control the power supplied to its power amplifier on the basis of information detected by the monitoring unit, each power source preferably includes an dynamic impedance matching unit (i.e. impedance tuner) arranged to match the impedance of each radiating element to the skin tissue to be treated." 3 Appeal2017-007900 Application 14/112,580 Hancock ,r 53. Hancock, thus, discloses an output matching network between the amplifier and the antenna. Hancock further discloses that a PIN diode may be used as an impedance matching network, in that "[i]mpedance matching may be achieved by phase adjustment ( e.g. a PIN diode or varactor diode phase shifter[)]." Id. The Examiner, however, finds "Hancock's [PIN] diode is not explicitly disclosed as being a PIN diode switch." Answer 3. Although Hancock discloses the use of a PIN diode, it is used as an output matching network. Hancock, thus, does not disclose both an output matching network and a PIN diode switch, as claimed, between the amplifier and antenna. Instead, the Examiner finds that Delannoy discloses the use of a PIN diode switch, citing column 13, line 34 to column 14, line 4. Answer 3. Here, Delannoy discloses "a pin-diode switch between the signal generator and the amplifier was used." Delannoy col. 13, 11. 47--48; see also 11. 60-63. Delannoy's PIN diode switch is, thus, not between the amplifier and antenna, as claimed. The Examiner determine that "[ t ]here is no claim language regarding 'arranged between.' That is, the claimed 'a switch for selectively connecting to the radio frequency amplifier' does not place any further restriction on positioning of the antenna." Answer 25. The Examiner also determines that Delannoy's PIN diode switch, between the amplifier and signal generator, "will perform identically no matter where the switch is positioned." Id. We disagree with the Examiner. The plain meaning of the claim language is that the antenna includes a PIN diode that operates as a switch, and, thus, must be located between the antenna and amplifier. See Reply Br. 9. The Specification explains: 4 Appeal2017-007900 Application 14/112,580 Furthermore, the RF antenna preferably comprises PIN diode switches. In this way, the RF antennae of the applicator are made transparent to the RF field generated by the MR device. PIN diode switches should be used in the RF antennae of the applicator in case the MR resonance frequency of the MR device is close to the RF operation frequency of the applicator. Spec. 5, 11. 21-25. The ordinary artisan would have recognized that a radio- frequency circuit, with a PIN diode switch in it, would not operate as described in the Specification if the switch were located outside the RF circuit that exists between the amplifier and antenna. Delannoy, for instance, explains the purpose of the PIN diode before the amplifier is "to stop passively any 21 MHz signal ( emitted inadvertently from the signal generator) from damaging the MR unit's preamplifier." Delannoy col. 13, 11. 49-52. The Examiner has, thus, not demonstrated that the combination of Hancock and Delannoy renders obvious both an output matching network and PIN diode switch located between a power amplifier and antenna in a "thermal treatment applicator for deposition of thermal energy within tissue of a body of a patient in a radio frequency field generated by a magnetic resonance device," as claimed. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 11, nor of dependent claims 2, 3, 6-9, 12-15, 17, and 18, which were rejected along with claims 1, 5, and 11. Claims 4. 10. and 16 The Examiner has not established on the record that either of Atalar or Krockel remedy the shortcomings in the combination of Hancock and Delannoy, as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 5, and 11. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 16 that additionally rely on Atalar, or claim 10 that additionally relies on Krockel. 5 Appeal2017-007900 Application 14/112,580 DECISION We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-18. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation