Ex Parte Amano

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2017

13634354 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2017)

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.
13/634,354 09/12/2012 Masaharu Amano 090040-0023 5745
20277 7590 08/11/2017
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
EXAMINER
HARE, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2017 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):
ipdocketmwe @ mwe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAHARU AMANO
Appeal 2016-005225
Application 13/634,354
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005225
Application 13/634,354
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 5—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A body section imaging apparatus comprising:
[A.] a gantry with an opening having a central axis inclined so
that the opening is directed obliquely downward;
[B.] a support table disposed obliquely below the gantry, and
having an inclined surface for supporting a patient so that the central
axis of the opening and a body axis of the patient become parallel
with each other;
[C.] an imaging position moving mechanism configured to
drive the support table to insert the patient into the opening, the
imaging position moving mechanism moving the support table along
the central axis of the opening-,
[D.] a gantry moving mechanism configured to move the
gantry along the central axis of the opening-,
[E.] struts on which the gantry, the support table, the imaging
position moving mechanism, and the gantry moving mechanism are
mounted; and
[F.] a base configured to rotatably support the struts, and
including an imaging angle change mechanism configured to drive the
struts to change an angle of the struts relative to a horizontal surface,
the gantry, the support table, the imaging position moving mechanism,
and the gantry moving mechanism being moved together with the
struts, wherein
[G.] the gantry is so mounted on the struts that an angle of the
central axis of the opening changes together with the changing of the
angle of the struts while maintaining a relative angle of the central
axis and the struts constant.
2
Appeal 2016-005225
Application 13/634,354
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5—8, 11, 17—20, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Okada
(US 4,961,208; iss. Oct. 2, 1990) and Dehner (US 5,574,763; iss. Nov. 12,
1996).1
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Okada, Dehner, and Fast
(US 5,014,688; iss. May 14, 1991).
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 12—16, 22, and 23, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Okada, Dehner, and
Mastronardi et al. (US 4,422,177; iss. Dec. 20, 1983).
Appellant’s Contentions2
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
According to the Examiner, because “[vjertical movement is
accomplished by sub-unit [14] and rotational movement is
accomplished by sub-unit [15],” Okada’s drive unit 12 can move
gantry 1 along inclined center axis 28 (paragraph 39 of the April
29, 2015 Office Action (“Office Action”)). However, it is
apparent for a person skilled in the art that Okada’s drive unit 12
cannot move gantry 1 along the inclined center axis 28 because
subunits 14 and 15 can only rotate and vertically move gantry 1
(the movement of gantry 1 by subunits 14 and 15 does not
include horizontal movement). The Examiner has not yet
1 As to claims 5—25, our decision as to claim 1 is determinative. Except for
our ultimate decision, claims 5—25 are not discussed further herein.
2 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellant’s other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal 2016-005225
Application 13/634,354
discharged his burden to show why Okada’s drive unit 12 can
move gantry 1 along inclined center axis 28.
App. Br. 6.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. As to Appellant’s above contention,
we agree.
In response to Appellant’s above contention, the Examiner finds:
Both sub-unit [14] and [15] can provide movement to
gantry [ 1 ] along the central axis [28] and meet the claim language
of “a gantry moving mechanism configured to move the gantry
along the central axis of the opening.” Furthermore, Okada
suggests coordination of gantry movement via drive unit [12] “in
such a way that the head of the subject [2] approaches the tunnel
[10] in the gantry [1]” (see Okada, column 3, lines [9-13]). In
this manner, coordination of vertical and rotational movement of
the gantry [1] is suggested to align a subject along the central
axis [28].
Ans. 5 (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner that the vertical and rotational movement
of the gantry does align a subject along the central axis. However, claim 1
requires “a gantry moving mechanism configured to move the gantry along
the central axis of the opening.'” While Okada reasonably shows aligning a
gantry along a central axis, we do not find where Okada teaches moving the
gantry along the central axis.
4
Appeal 2016-005225
Application 13/634,354
We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s argument, there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s findings.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to
support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 5—25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 5—25 are reversed.
REVERSED
5