KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 24, 2021

2021001110 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
15/544,527 07/19/2017 Gregory Cole 2014P01525WOUS 4792
24737 7590 12/24/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
ULSH, GEORGE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY COLE, MOLLY LARA FLEXMAN,
DAVID PAUL NOONAN, and NERIMAN NICOLETTA KAHYA

Appeal 2021-001110
Application 15/544,527
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9 and 13–17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001110
Application 15/544,527

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. An endograft, comprising:
a stent structure;
at least one attachment mechanism configured to
releasably attach to the stent structure; and
at least one optical shape sensing system having one or
more optical fibers for generating optical shape sensing data,
wherein said optical shape sensing system is coupled to the at
least one attachment mechanism and is configured to measure
at least one of shape, position or orientation of the stent
structure based on the optical shape sensing data.
REJECTION
Claims 1–9 and 13–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Millett et al. (US 2014/0180126 A1, pub. June 26, 2014)
(hereinafter “Millett”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, an “optical shape sensing system
having one or more optical fibers for generating optical shape sensing data”
that is “configured to measure at least one of shape, position or orientation
of the stent structure based on the optical shape sensing data.”
Such “shape sensing” features figure prominently the Appellant’s
Specification, which is entitled “Endograft Visualization with Pre-Integrated
or Removable Optical Shape Sensing Attachments.” Spec. 1, ll. 1–2. The
Specification explains:
Appeal 2021-001110
Application 15/544,527

3
Optical shape sensing (OSS) uses light along a multicore
optical fiber for device localization and navigation during
surgical intervention. One principle involved makes use of
distributed strain measurement in the optical fiber using
characteristic Rayleigh backscatter or controlled grating
patterns. The shape along the optical fiber begins at a specific
point along the sensor, known as the launch point (or z = 0),
and the subsequent shape[,] position and orientation are relative
to that point.
Id. at 1, ll. 11–17. The Specification points out that “shape sensing” is
particularly beneficial in the types of medical procedures addressed therein,
which involve positioning an instrument in a particular configuration within
a three-dimensional vasculature:
In accordance with the present principles, a three-
dimensional visualization of a stent (endograft) with respect to
anatomic imaging (e.g., a pre-operative computed tomography
(CT) image, an intra-operative xperCT/3DRA, a fluoroscopy
roadmap, ultrasound, etc.) can be more accurately controlled
during deployment using optical shape sensing (OSS).
Introducing OSS for navigation to endovascular aneurysm
repair (EVAR) can reduce radiation dose and provide a more
intuitive way to position catheters and guidewires within a
three-dimensional vasculature to reduce procedure times and
improve outcomes.
Id. at 6, ll. 6–12.
According to the Examiner, Millett teaches the claimed “optical shape
sensing system” features, in its disclosure of techniques associated with the
imaging fiber 129. See Final Act. 4 (citing Millett ¶¶ 6–9, 42, 51–56, Figs.
2–8).
The Appellant argues that Millett’s technique “does not disclose
optical shape sensing data”; instead, Millett “imag[es] a target site 151” and
Appeal 2021-001110
Application 15/544,527

4
“does not disclose measuring at least one of shape, position or orientation of
the stent 161.” Appeal Br. 7.
Indeed, rather than disclosing a technology for “measur[ing] at least
one of shape, position or orientation of the stent structure,” per claim 1,
Millett is directed to “imag[ing] a treatment site,” whereby “an operator can
examine the treatment site while positioning” the instrument (such as a
balloon catheter). Millett ¶ 6. Accordingly, Millett describes the use of a
“photoacoustic transducer 135 . . . to generate a longitudinal pressure wave
139.” Id. ¶ 42. Accordingly, “[w]hen distal portion 105 of catheter 101 is in
a patient’s vessel, pressure wave 139 can be used for ultrasonic imaging of
material in the vessel, plaque, the vessel wall, surrounding tissue, other
material, or a combination thereof.” Id. Millett’s technique creates “an
image of the target treatment site” (id. ¶ 45), but does not “measure at least
one of shape, position or orientation of the” instrument itself, as claim 1
recites.
In view of the foregoing, the Appellant persuades us of error in the
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 8, 13, and
17, each of which contains substantially identical language to that addressed
herein. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–9 and 13–
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Appeal 2021-001110
Application 15/544,527

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9 and 13–17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1), as anticipated by Millett, is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 13–17 102(a)(1) Millett 1–9,
13–17

REVERSED