ELEKTA LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 27, 2020

14887534 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 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.
14/887,534 10/20/2015 Gregory TRAUSCH 12475.0073-00000 6201
22852 7590 10/27/2020
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
CWERN, JONATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2020 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY TRAUSCH, KEVIN BROWN, and
DAN THOMPSON

Appeal 2020-003030
Application 14/887,534
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–9, 12–17, and 19. The Appellant’s
arguments were heard in an oral hearing held on October 15, 2020. A
transcript of the oral hearing has been entered into the record (“Tr.”). 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 “Elekta Limited, a corporation of
the United Kingdom,” as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003030
Application 14/887,534

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 16, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A radiotherapy system, comprising:
a patient support;
a radiotherapy device configured to generate a therapeutic
beam of radiation incident upon a treatment volume;
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus configured
to generate imaging data of an imaging volume which
encompasses the treatment volume, the MRI apparatus
defining a bore in which the patient support can be at
least partially positioned;
an arm; and
an imaging coil, fixedly attached to the MRI apparatus by
the arm and arranged within the bore, wherein:
the imaging coil comprises a conducting coil and
electronic circuitry coupled to the conducting
coil, such that the electronic circuitry is
configured to control the conducting coil and is
located along a proximal side of the imaging
coil with respect to the arm, and wherein the
conducting coil and the electronic circuitry are
within the bore;
the arm has a length extending within the bore
toward the proximal side of the imaging coil
and is configured to move relative to and within
the bore, to prevent the electronic circuitry from
intersecting the beam within the bore; and
the imaging coil is configured to detect MRI
signals emitted from the imaging volume within
the bore.
Appeal Br. 25, Claims App. Independent claims 16 and 19 have similar
requirements as independent claim 1. See id. at 27–29.
Appeal 2020-003030
Application 14/887,534

3

Rejections
Claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 12–17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Applicant’s Admission of the Prior Art (“AAPA”) in
view of Boernert et al. (US 6,317,619 B1, issued Nov. 13, 2001)
(“Boernert”) and, alternatively, AAPA in view of Boernert and Dempsey et
al. (US 2011/0241684 A1, published Oct. 6, 2011) (“Dempsey”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over AAPA
in view of Boernert and Ruohonen et al. (US 2008/0064950 A1, published
Mar. 13, 2008) (“Ruohonen”) and, alternatively, AAPA in view of Boernert
and Dempsey, and Ruohonen.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over AAPA in view of Boernert and,
alternatively, AAPA in view of Boernert and Dempsey. Final Act. 2–6.
These rejections rely on Boernert to teach “an MRI system including an
imaging coil attached to a moveable arm[,] wherein the position of the coil
within the bore is controlled with a control system” and an “imaging coil
includ[ing] a conducting coil and electronic circuitry positioned on the coil.”
Id. at 3, 4, 5 (citing Boernert, figs. 1–3a, col. 6, ll. 51–67, col. 10, ll. 33–67,
col. 11, ll. 30–35, col. 12, ll. 39–54). The Examiner further finds that
Boernert’s generally planar RF coil holder 9 “carries the coil and the
circuitry.” Id. In other words, the Examiner relies on Boernert to teach the
claimed “arm” and “imaging coil,” which includes the “conducting coil and
electronic circuitry.” See id.
Appeal 2020-003030
Application 14/887,534

4

The Examiner and the Appellant agree that Boernert does not show
the exact location of the electronic circuitry within holder 9, but that
Boernert’s electronic circuitry likely would be positioned around coil
holder 9. See Appeal Br. 12; Ans. 4. As for the latter point, we note that the
Appellant asserts that “one or ordinary skill would understand Boernert’s
disclosure to require electronic circuitry positioned all the way around coil
holder 9.” Reply Br. 3, 5; see Tr. 7:20 – 9:14.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner cannot support the
determination that as a result of applying Boernert’s teaching to the
teachings of AAPA, either with or without Dempsey’s teachings, that the
prior art would have resulted in claim 1’s recitation that “the arm . . . is
configured to move relative to and within the bore, to prevent the electronic
circuitry from intersecting the beam within the bore.” See Appeal Br. 13–
20; Reply Br. 5–10. The Appellant contends that “the imaging coil within
[Boernert’s] holder 9 cannot detect MRI signals without causing the
electronic circuitry positioned around coil holder 9 to intersect with the
beam.” Reply Br. 10. The Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
As discussed above, Boernert does not show the exact location of the
electronic circuitry within holder 9. On this basis alone the Examiner’s
rejection is flawed. However, even if one were to agree that the electronic
circuitry of Boernert’s imaging coil is positioned around coil holder 9, we
fail to understand how there is a way to prevent the electronic circuitry from
intersecting a therapeutic beam within an MRI apparatus’s bore. This is
because Boernert’s RF coil holder 9 and its electronic circuitry effectively
would occupy the same space.
Appeal 2020-003030
Application 14/887,534

5

The Examiner’s position starts with the premise that because
Boernert’s arm can move, the arm would be able to move anywhere within
the moveable limits of the arm. See Ans. 4–5. However, it is unclear how
the Examiner jumps from this premise to a conclusion that there is a manner
by which Boernert’s arm would be able to move to prevent the electronic
circuitry of Boernert’s RF coil holder 9 from intersecting a therapeutic beam
within an MRI apparatus’s bore. Stated otherwise, the Examiner fails to
adequately establish on the record — using evidence or technical reasoning
— how Boernert’s imaging coil would be able to perform the claimed
function of detecting MRI signals emitted from the imaging volume2 within
the bore without RF coil holder 9’s electronic circuitry intersecting the
therapeutic beam.
Moreover, although the Examiner relies on Dempsey to teach
avoidance of damage caused by a radiation beam to MRI system
components (id. at 5, 7–8), the Examiner’s alternative rejection based on the
teachings of AAPA, Boernert, and Dempsey also relies on the notion that the
electronic circuitry of Boernert’s RF coil holder 9 is situated around coil
holder 9. Accordingly, this alternative rejection has a similar problem as the
former rejection; i.e., the Examiner fails to adequately establish on the
record — using evidence or technical reasoning — how Boernert’s imaging
coil would be able to perform the claimed function of detecting MRI signals
emitted from the imaging volume within the bore without RF coil holder 9’s
electronic circuitry intersecting the therapeutic beam. In other words, with

2 The claimed “imaging volume” has a relationship between the claimed
therapeutic beam of the radiotherapy device and the claimed imaging data of
MRI apparatus. See Appeal Br. 25, Claims App. (Claim 1).
Appeal 2020-003030
Application 14/887,534

6

or without Dempsey’s teaching, we fail to understand how there is a way to
prevent the electronic circuitry of Boernert’s RF coil holder 9 from
intersecting a beam within an MRI apparatus’s bore. See Tr. 11:4– 22.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1, 16, and 19 and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Boernert and, alternatively, AAPA in
view of Boernert and Dempsey. Further, the Examiner fails to rely on the
teachings of Ruohonen in any manner that would remedy the deficiency in
the Examiner’s rejections as discussed above. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
AAPA in view of Boernert and Ruohonen, and alternatively, AAPA in view
of Boernert, Dempsey, and Ruohonen.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–9,
12–17, 19
103 AAPA, Boernert

1, 3–5, 7–9,
12–17, 19
1, 3–5, 7–9,
12–17, 19
103 AAPA, Boernert,
Dempsey
1, 3–5, 7–9,
12–17, 19
6 103 AAPA, Boernert,
Ruohonen
6
6 103 AAPA, Boernert,
Dempsey, Ruohonen
6
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9, 12–
17, 19

REVERSED