ASPECT IMAGING LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2020

14700205 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2020)

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.
14/700,205 04/30/2015 Boaz SHAPIRA P-79935-US/233905-30050 6295
69139 7590 08/21/2020
LOEB & LOEB, LLP
321 NORTH CLARK
SUITE 2300
CHICAGO, IL 60654-4746
EXAMINER
HO, HOAI V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2827
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2020 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):
CHPATENT@LOEB.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BOAZ SHAPIRA
____________________

Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1–3, 6–9, and 11. Appellant has canceled claims 4, 5,
10, and 12. See Appeal Br. 8–11. An oral hearing was scheduled for
August 11, 2020, but Appellant waived the hearing. See Resp. to Notice of
Hearing (filed July 31, 2020). We have jurisdiction over the remaining
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d
1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We reverse.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies
Aspect Imaging Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
“detecting cyclic electromagnetic perturbations that penetrate into the field
of view of a magnetic resonance imaging system.” Spec. ¶ 1. According to
the Specification, cyclic electromagnetic perturbations are a source of
artifacts in MRI measurements, which inherently have a low signal-to-noise
ratio. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. The Specification describes the perturbations as having
an amplitude 𝛼𝛼 and a frequency v. Spec. ¶ 2. In a disclosed embodiment,
the frequency and amplitude of the perturbing signal are determined during
the acquisition of a spin-echo spectrum in a magnetic resonance device.
Spec. ¶ 7. According to the Specification, once the frequency of the
perturbing signal is determined, it may be extracted from the resulting
magnetic resonance image. See Spec. ¶ 59.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for a magnetic resonance device to remove a
perturbing cyclic electromagnetic signal included within a spin-
echo spectrum measurement taken by the magnetic resonance
device, the method comprising:
acquiring, by the magnetic resonance device, a plurality of
n 2D NMR spectra, each of said 2D NMR spectra having a ΩTR
axis, a Ω𝜏𝜏, and a different value of TR;
selecting, by the magnetic resonance device, a peak in
each of said n 2D NMR spectra, said peak having a peak value
along said Ω𝜏𝜏 axis, a peak value along said ΩTR axis, and an area
A(Ω𝜏𝜏, ΩTR);
calculating, by the magnetic resonance device, for each n,
possible frequencies of said peak along said ΩTR axis;
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

3
eliminating, by the magnetic resonance device, results that
do not match the peak value of said peak along said ΩTR axis,
thereby obtaining v;
determining the amplitude α of said perturbing
electromagnetic signal, comprising:
calculating ∅𝛼𝛼=1(𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏, 𝑡𝑡TR) from ∅(𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏, 𝑡𝑡TR) =
−4𝜋𝜋
𝜔𝜔
�𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(∅0 + 𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏 + 𝜔𝜔𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇)�1 − 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠(𝜔𝜔𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏)��, [sic] where
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 = 𝜔𝜔(1 + 𝑁𝑁𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇∆𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 / ∆𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏);
determining said amplitude α from ∅𝛼𝛼=1(𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏, 𝑡𝑡TR);
removing, by the magnetic resonance device, said
perturbing electromagnetic signal from the spin-echo
measurement to obtain a spin-echo signal without the unwanted
electromagnetic signal; and
producing, by the magnetic resonance device, at least one
magnetic resonance image based on the obtained spin-echo
signal.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–3, 6–9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Non-Final Act. 3–7.

ANALYSIS2
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion that the pending claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 3–6; Reply
Br. 1–2. In particular, Appellant argues that when properly considered as a
whole, the claims provide an improvement in the operation of an MRI

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
August 28, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed November 16, 2018
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 1, 2018 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed May 14, 2018 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

4
device. Appeal Br. 3–6; Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant asserts the claims are
necessarily rooted in computer technology and amount to significantly more
than a mental process or mathematical relationship, as determined by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 3–6.
The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In addition, the Office has published revised guidance
for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically
with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Office
Guidance”). If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent
eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)
then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially
recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must “look
at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the
claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.”
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257–58 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Per the Office Guidance, this first inquiry has two prongs of
analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea),
and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application.
Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Under the Office Guidance, if the
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, see infra, the
claim passes muster under § 101. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. See
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed.
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

5
Cir. 2016). However, if the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e.,
recites a judicial exception and does not integrate the exception into a
practical application), the next step is to determine whether any element, or
combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner concludes the claims are directed to an abstract idea
because it organizes information through mathematical correlations, or could
be carried out as a mental process, “at least in principle.” Non-Final Act. 3–
6 (citing Parker,3 Classen,4 and Electric Power5). Moreover, the Examiner
finds the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea, and
that the claims merely recite generic functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional. Non-Final Act. 6–7; see also Ans. 4–5 (finding
the claimed magnetic resonance device is well-understood, routine, and
conventional).
We disagree that the instant claims recite a scenario analogous to that
in Electric Power. Rather, in Electric Power, the court determined the focus
of the pending claims was “on collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Elec. Pwr., 830
F.3d at 1353. Further, the court explained that “[i]nformation as such is an
intangible” and that the collection of information falls within the realm of
abstract ideas. Elec. Pwr., 830 F.3d at 1353. In addition, “analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical

3 Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
4 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
5 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

6
algorithms, without more [are treated] as essentially mental processes within
the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Pwr., 830 F.3d at 1354.
As an initial matter, we disagree that the claims recite a method that
can, as a practical matter, be carried out within one’s mind. See Research
Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (a
method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing,
pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask was found to
recite patent-eligible subject matter because the method could not, as a
practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind); SiRF Tech., Inc.
v. Int’l Trade Comm’n., 601 F.3d 1319, 1331–33 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (a method
for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time
of reception of satellite signals was found to recite patent-eligible subject
matter because there was “no evidence . . . that the calculations here [could]
be performed entirely in the human mind”). Specifically, the human mind
alone cannot perform the steps of “acquiring, by the magnetic resonance
device, a plurality of n 2D NMR spectra,” “selecting, by the magnetic
resonance device, a peak in each of said n 2D NMR spectra,” “removing, by
the magnetic resonance device, said perturbing signal from the spin-echo
measurement to obtain a spin-echo signal without the unwanted
electromagnetic signal,” and “producing, by the magnetic resonance device,
at least one magnetic resonance image based on the obtained spin-echo
signal,” as recited in claim 1. Rather, those steps require use of the magnetic
resonance device to acquire the spectra, remove perturbing signals, and
produce an image. Accordingly, the instant claims are not directed to a
mental process (a category of abstract ideas).
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

7
Although we agree that the claims involve mathematical calculations
(i.e., mathematical correlations), we are mindful that “an invention is not
rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract
concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 271. As set forth in the claims, cyclic
electromagnetic perturbations that occur during spin echo measurements are
detected and removed from a produced magnetic resonance image based on
the obtained spin echo signal. See, e.g., claim 1; see also Spec. ¶¶ 2–7.
Here, we conclude that the focus of the claims (i.e., the character of
the claims as a whole) is more than merely organizing information through
mathematical correlations or mental processes. Instead, we conclude the
claims are directed to providing an improved magnetic resonance image
based on a spin-echo measurement by detecting and removing a perturbing
electromagnetic signal from the originally acquired spin-echo measurement
data. See Spec. ¶¶ 3–4 (identifying an issue in the field of magnetic
resonance imaging and a proposed solution); see also Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining the
conclusion that the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing
technology is bolstered by the specification’s teachings).
As the court discussed in Enfish, claims that improve an existing
technology might not succumb to the abstract idea exception of patent
eligibility. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. In Enfish, the court framed the first
step of the Alice inquiry as whether the focus of the claims is on a specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead on an abstract idea
that merely uses a computer as a tool for carrying out the abstract idea.
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36.
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

8
In addition, our reviewing court has also recently concluded that
claims directed to an improvement to cardiac monitoring technology were
not directed to an abstract idea. CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955
F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020). More particularly, the court concluded
that the claims were patent eligible because they focus on a specific method
that improves cardiac monitoring rather than being directed to a result or
effect that is the abstract idea itself. CardioNet, 955 F.3d at 1368.
Similarly, in Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2017), the court concluded that although the claims utilized
mathematical equations to determine the orientation of an object relative to a
reference frame, the claims were patent eligible because they “result in a
system that reduces errors in an inertial system that tracks an object on a
moving platform.” As discussed above, we find that the instant claims are
directed to improving magnetic resonance images based on a spin-echo
measurement by detecting and removing a perturbing electromagnetic signal
from the originally acquired spin-echo measurement data.
Accordingly, we conclude the claims are patent eligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Moreover, analysis under the Office Guidance does not alter our
conclusion. The Examiner concludes the claims are directed to an abstract
idea. See Non-Final Act. 3–7. In particular, the Examiner concludes the
claims are directed to “organizing information through mathematical
correlations.” Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner explains the “claimed
invention focuses on the calculation of amplitude from acquiring a plurality
of spectra by mathematical formula is just acquiring data.” Non-Final
Act. 6.
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

9
Claim 1 is reproduced below and includes those limitations identified
by the Examiner (see Non-Final Act. 3–7) as reciting organizing information
through mathematical correlations emphasized in italics:
1. A method for a magnetic resonance device to remove a
perturbing cyclic electromagnetic signal included within a spin-
echo spectrum measurement taken by the magnetic resonance
device, the method comprising:
acquiring, by the magnetic resonance device, a plurality of
n 2D NMR spectra, each of said 2D NMR spectra having a ΩTR
axis, a Ω𝜏𝜏, and a different value of TR;
selecting, by the magnetic resonance device, a peak in
each of said n 2D NMR spectra, said peak having a peak value
along said Ω𝜏𝜏 axis, a peak value along said ΩTR axis, and an area
A(Ω𝜏𝜏, ΩTR);
calculating, by the magnetic resonance device, for each n,
possible frequencies of said peak along said ΩTR axis;
eliminating, by the magnetic resonance device, results that
do not match the peak value of said peak along said ΩTR axis,
thereby obtaining v;
determining the amplitude α of said perturbing
electromagnetic signal, comprising:
calculating ∅𝛼𝛼=1(𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏, 𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) from ∅(𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏, 𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇) =
−4𝜋𝜋
𝜔𝜔
�𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(∅0 + 𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏 + 𝜔𝜔𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇)�1 − 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠(𝜔𝜔𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏)��, [sic] where
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 = 𝜔𝜔(1 + 𝑁𝑁𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇∆𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 / ∆𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏);
determining said amplitude α from ∅𝛼𝛼=1(𝑡𝑡𝜏𝜏, 𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇);
removing, by the magnetic resonance device, said
perturbing electromagnetic signal from the spin-echo
measurement to obtain a spin-echo signal without the unwanted
electromagnetic signal; and
producing, by the magnetic resonance device, at least one
magnetic resonance image based on the obtained spin-echo
signal.
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

10
Because the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e., a mathematical
concept such as a mathematical relationship, formula or equation),6 we next
determine whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical
application. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify
whether there are “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the
judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether they
integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application.
Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added); see also Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.,
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
As discussed above, we find the additional limitations integrate the
abstract idea (as identified by the Examiner) into a practical application—
specifically improving magnetic resonance images based on a spin-echo
measurement by detecting and removing a perturbing electromagnetic signal
from the originally acquired spin-echo measurement data. See MPEP
§ 2106.05(a).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 of claims 1–3, 6–9, and 11.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 6–9, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

6 See Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appeal 2019-001036
Application 14/700,205

11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–9, 11 101 Eligibility 1–3, 6–9,
11

REVERSED