Roland Proksa et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 19, 2021

2020006585 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 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.
14/124,822 12/09/2013 Roland Proksa 2011P00323WOUS 9940
24737 7590 05/19/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
SABOKTAKIN, MARJAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2021 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 ROLAND PROKSA and LADISLAV JANKOVIC

Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10–19, and 21.
Appeal Br. 26. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application is generally related to agent-based computed
tomography (“CT”). See Spec. 1 (Field of Invention). We reproduce claim
1, below, with emphases added to limitations addressed in this Decision:
1. A system for determining when to start scanning a
subject with respect to an administration of an ionizing contrast
agent, comprising:
a first imaging system configured to image and contrast
the ionizing contrast agent in a predetermined area of a vessel
in the subject utilizing an ionizing radiation; and
a second imaging system configured to image and contrast
a photo-acoustic contrast agent in the predetermined area of the
vessel utilizing a non-ionizing radiation, wherein the second
imaging system comprises:
an optical source configured to emit the non-
ionizing radiation that penetrates tissues of the subject and
excites the photo-acoustic contrast agent;
an ultrasound receiver configured to detect acoustic
radiation in the predetermined area of the vessel emitted
in response to the non-ionizing radiation and
output an acoustic signal representative of the
detected acoustic radiation in the predetermined area of
the vessel; and
at least one processor configured to receive the
acoustic signal, compare the acoustic signal to a
predetermined threshold, and generate a trigger signal
indicative of a presence of the photo-acoustic contrast
agent in the predetermined area of the vessel when the
acoustic signal exceeds the predetermined threshold,
wherein the first imaging system is further configured, in
response to the generated trigger signal, to start scanning
the predetermined area of the vessel.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Henrichs US 6,662,040 B1 Dec. 9, 2003
Van der Brink US 2007/0222447 A1 Sept. 27, 2007
Kanda2 English-language translation of
JP 2005073764
July 20, 2018
Park Suhyun Park et al.,
Photoacoustic Imaging Using
Array Transducer, 6437 Proc.
of SPIE 643714-1, 643714-1–7
2007
Wang Lihong V. Wang, Prospects of
Photoacoustic Tomography, 35
Med. Phys. 5758, 5758–67
Dec. 2008

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
(1) Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 13–16, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanda in view of
Henrichs. Final Act. 3.
(2) Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kanda in view of Henrichs and Park. Final
Act. 7.

2 Kanda is a machine-generated translation of a Japanese patent document.
See, generally, Kanda; see also id. at 1 (“This translation is machine-
generated. It cannot be guaranteed that it is intelligible, accurate, complete,
reliable or fit for specific purposes. Critical decisions, such as commercially
relevant or financial decisions, should not be based on machine-translation
output.”).

Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
4
(3) Claims 7, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kanda in view of Henrichs and Van der Brink. Final
Act. 8.3
(4) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kanda in view of Henrichs and Wang. Final Act. 10.4

OPINION
I. Rejection Based on Kanda and Henrichs
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 13–16, and 18 as
unpatentable over Kanda in view of Henrichs. Final Act. 3.

A. The Examiner’s Rejection of Independent Claim 1
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kanda
discloses several of the claimed limitations. See Final Act 3–4. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Kanda’s X-ray CT apparatus satisfies the
claimed “first imaging system configured to image and contrast the ionizing
contrast agent” and Kanda’s ultrasonic examination apparatus satisfies the
claimed “second imaging system configured to image and contrast a photo-
acoustic contrast agent.” See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Kanda ¶¶ 14, 15, 17–19,
24). The Examiner further finds that Kanda’s “first imaging system” and
“second imaging system” are “configured to image and contrast” their

3 Although the rejection only lists claims 7 and 19, we understand the
rejection to include claim 21, as claim 21 is addressed in the rejection. See
Final Act. 8.
4 Although the rejection does not list Henrichs, we understand that the
rejection relies on Henrichs’ teachings, as it references the rejection “applied
to claim 1 above.” See Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
5
respective contrast agents in the same “predetermined area of the vessel,” as
required by the claims. See id. (citing Kanda ¶¶ 15, 19).
As to the claimed “predetermined area of a vessel,” the Examiner
explains,
[T]he section of vessel starting where the first imaging system
images the vessel up to the section of the vessel that the second
imaging system images the vessel (the first imaging area all the
way up to the second imaging area of the vessel) is taken to be
equivalent to the term “the predetermined area” of Kanda.
. . . [T]he second imaging system images in a different area of
the section of the vessel of interest but yet within the section of
vessel of interest since the two areas imaged by the first and
second imaging systems together make up the section of vessel
of interest.
Id.
The Examiner concedes, however, that “Kanda does not disclose the
second imaging system images a photoacoustic agent, includes an optical
source and the receiver outputting an acoustic signal as output in response to
detection of the ultrasound radiation from the photoacoustic source.” Id. at
5. To address this shortcoming, the Examiner relies on Henrichs’s
teachings. See id. In particular, the Examiner finds that Henrichs teaches
the use of photo-acoustic contrast materials and an optical source. Id. (citing
Henrichs, Abstr., 4:48–58). In combining Henrichs’s teachings with Kanda,
the Examiner reasons,
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to modify the ultrasound non-
ionizing imaging modality of Kanda and use a photoacoustic
imaging modality instead which is also a non-ionizing imaging
modality according to the teachings of Henrichs in order to
provide a more sensitive imaging modality and detection of small
quantities of chemicals.
Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
6
Id. (citing Henrichs, 2:10–15).

B. Analysis of Claim 1
Appellant submits that Kanda’s “first imaging system” and “second
imaging system” are not “configured to image and contrast” in the same
“predetermined area,” as required by the claims. See Appeal Br. 9–11; see
also Reply Br. 3–4; see also Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). Appellant
argues, “Kanda describes two areas of interest: a monitoring site used by an
ultrasound imaging system and an imaging site used by an X-ray imaging
system.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added). Appellant contends that these
“two areas (sites) of interest are distinct and separate from each other.”
Id. Appellant explains that “the monitoring site is upstream from the
imaging site.” Id. at 10 (citing Kanda ¶¶ 9–11). Appellant asserts that “a
prima facie case has not been established by the Examiner” as the Examiner
has failed to “cit[e] any paragraph regarding the claimed feature ‘configured
to image and contrast a contrast agent in the predetermined area of the
vessel.’” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
Independent claim 1 recites, “a first imaging system configured to
image and contrast . . . in a predetermined area of a vessel . . . [and] a
second imaging system configured to image and contrast . . . in the
predetermined area of the vessel.” Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.) (emphases
added). The language is clear that the first and second imaging systems both
“image and contrast” in the same “predetermined area of a vessel.” The
Examiner failed to persuade us that Kanda’s disclosure satisfies this
limitation. See Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 4 (“the examiner strongly
believes that the prior art reads on the language of the claim since ‘a
Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
7
predetermined area’ of the first imaging system can be defined large enough
that includes both areas for monitoring and imaging in Kanda.”).
The Examiner cites to Kanda’s paragraphs 15 and 19 to support a
finding that Kanda’s X-ray imaging system (i.e., the claimed “first imaging
system”) and Kanda’s ultrasonic monitoring system (i.e., the claimed
“second imaging system”) each performs “imaging and contrasting” in the
same “predetermined area of the vessel.” See Final Act. 3–4.
Kanda’s paragraphs 15 and 19 disclose:
[0015] The X-ray CT apparatus 10 includes a host
computer 11 for overall control of the entire system, a turntable
scanner (not shown) equipped with measurement units such as
an X-ray source 12, an X-ray control unit 13, an X-ray detector
14, a measurement circuit 15 A scanner control unit 19 for
controlling the rotational scanning of the object to be inspected,
and a scanner control unit 19 for controlling the rotational
scanning of the subject, such as the positioning of the subject and
the preliminary processing and reconstruction processing of the
measurement data with the transport subject table 16 and the
table control unit 17 during the spiral scanning And an image
processing apparatus 18 for executing various kinds of image
processing.
[0019] Here, for the detection of the ultrasonic contrast
agent by the ultrasonic examination apparatus, temporal change
of the magnitude of the ultrasonic reflection signal can be used.
As is well known, the intensity of the reflected signal from the
contrast agent is known to be much greater than the intensity of
the reflected signal from the tissues and blood flow of the
monitoring site. In the present embodiment, the monitoring part
is displayed near the center of the screen of the ultrasonic
inspection apparatus, the ROI is set therein, and the sum of the
ultrasonic reflected signal intensities for each pixel in the ROI is
compared with a preset threshold value By the means for setting,
the trigger signal 1 is set at the timing at which it exceeds the
threshold value. Further, by displaying the monitoring part near
the center of the screen of the ultrasonic examination apparatus,
Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
8
setting the ROI thereon, and storing the sum of the ultrasonic
reflected signal intensities for each pixel in the ROI for each
frame, [a] so-called time concentration curve (IDC) is obtained,
and the trigger signal 2 can be set at the timing at which the
gradient becomes more negative than positive. In these cases,
since the frame interval of the ultrasonic inspection apparatus can
be freely selected within the range of 1 0 ms to 100 ms, there is
sufficient time accuracy as compared with CT imaging with a
frame interval of 0.5 to 1 s.
Kanda, 7, 9; see also Final Act. 3–4 (citing Kanda ¶¶ 15, 19).
We find nothing in these paragraphs that provides any insight on the
location of Kanda’s “monitoring site” or “imaging site” to support the
Examiner’s position that they are in the same “predetermined area of the
vessel.” See Ans. 4. Rather, we find the most relevant disclosure regarding
the relative locations of Kanda’s “monitoring site” and “imaging site” to be
cited by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Kanda ¶¶ 9–11).
Kanda’s discloses:
According to the present invention, it is possible to
accurately estimate the time when the contrast agent reaches the
imaging region, which is the region of interest, before the arrival
of the contrast medium sufficiently by monitoring the monitoring
region which is imaged prior to the imaging region, and invalid
exposure [c]an be reduced.
Kanda ¶ 11 (emphases added). Importantly, Kanda discloses two distinct
regions: a “monitoring region,” where ultrasonic monitoring is performed,
and an “imaging region,” where x-ray imaging is performed. See id. at 1
(Problem to be Solved).
Kanda’s also discloses, “monitoring is performed as another region of
interest in the vicinity of the contrast medium inflow path, which is imaged
upstream of the region to be imaged which is the region of interest of the
subject and prior to the region to be imaged.” Id. ¶ 9 (emphases added).
Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
9
From this disclosure, we understand that Kanda’s “monitoring region” is in
“another region of interest” and is upstream from the “imaging region.”5
Kanda’s further discloses, “the arrival of the monitoring contrast agent
to the monitoring site is detected, [a]nd to estimate the arrival time of the
contrast agent for measurement to the imaging site well before reaching it.”
Id. ¶ 10 (emphasis added). From this disclosure, we understand that the
“monitoring site” is located some distance upstream from the “imaging site”
so that the “arrival time of the contrast agent for measurement to the imaging
site” can be estimated “well before reaching it.” Stated differently, and as
best as we can discern, this disclosure suggests that the “monitoring site” is
located far enough away from the “imaging site” so as to give Kanda’s
system enough time to prepare for imaging.
Upon reviewing the relevant portions of Kanda as a whole, we find
nothing to support the Examiner’s position that Kanda’s “monitoring region”
and “imaging region” are in the same “predetermined area of the vessel.”
For all we know, based on Kanda’s scant disclosure (see supra n.2), the
“monitoring region” may be located within a patient’s arm—where an
intravenous bolus may be administered—while the “imaging region” may be
the patient’s brain. See Kanda 1 (“the ultrasonic contrast agent is injected to
the monitoring site”); see also id. ¶ 5 (describing imaging to obtain cerebral
blood flow). Under the Examiner’s broad interpretation of “predetermined
area of the vessel,” a vessel within the arm would be in the same

5 Although Kanda also discloses that “monitoring is performed . . . in the
vicinity of the contrast medium flow path,” we understand the “contrast
medium flow path” is for the “ultrasonic contrast agent . . . injected to the
monitoring site,” and not necessarily in the vicinity of the imaging site. See
Kanda ¶ 9; see also id. at 1 (“the ultrasonic contrast agent is injected to the
monitoring site.”).
Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
10
“predetermined area” as a vessel within the brain. See Ans. 4 (“‘a
predetermined area’ . . . can be defined large enough that includes both areas
for monitoring and imaging of Kanda”). This construction is unreasonably
broad. The Examiner’s interpretation effectively renders the limitation
superfluous, as it would seemingly permit the location of any “imaging and
contrasting” of the “first imaging system” and “second imaging system” to
satisfy the claimed “predetermined area of the vessel,” even if the
monitoring and imaging occurred at different parts of the human body.
See Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 525 F.3d 1327, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (rejecting claim construction that would render a claim term
superfluous).
Because we are not persuaded that Kanda’s X-ray system (i.e., the
claimed “first imaging system”) and Kanda’s ultrasonic system (i.e., the
claimed “second imaging system”) are “configured to image and contrast” in
the same “predetermined area of the vessel,” we reverse the rejection of
independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Kanda in view of Henrichs. We
also reverse the rejection of claims 3, 8, 10, 11, 13–16, and 18 as
unpatentable over Kanda in view of Henrichs, as the rejection of these
claims inherits the same flawed interpretation and finding. See Final Act. 5–
7.

II. Other Rejections Based on Kanda in view of Henrichs
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 7, 12, 17, 19, and 21 rely on
the Examiner’s flawed interpretation of claim 1 and unsupportable position
regarding Kanda’s disclosure. See Final Act. 7, 8, 10. For the same reasons
we reverse the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Kanda in view of
Appeal 2020-006585
Application 14/124,822
11
Henrichs, we also reverse the rejection of claims 4, 7, 12, 17, 19, and 21 as
unpatentable over Kanda, Henrichs, and the other cited references. See id.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10–19,
and 21.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/B
asis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 8, 10,
11, 13–16,
18
103(a) Kanda,
Henrichs
1, 3, 8, 10,
11, 13–16,
18
4, 17 103(a) Kanda,
Henrichs, Park
4, 17
7, 19, 21 103(a) Kanda,
Henrichs,
Van der Brink
7, 19, 21
12 103(a) Kanda,
Henrichs, Wang
12
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 7, 8,
10–19, 21
REVERSED