Ex Parte Deladi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2019

13885016 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/885,016 05/13/2013 Szabolcs Deladi
24737 7590 02/20/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2010P01323WOUS 1047
EXAMINER
SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SZABOLCS DELADI,
ERIK GODEFRIDUS ANTONIUS HARKS,
AMEET KUMAR JAIN,
FRANCOIS GUY GERARD MARIE VIGNON,
MAIKEL HENDRIKS, and
GARARDUS HENRICUS MARIA GIJSBERS
Appeal2018-002188
Application 13/885,016 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, "KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N V" is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002188
Application 13/885,016
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "determining the
location of an in-body device[,] like a catheter or a needle within a heart of a
person." Spec. 1, 11. 2-5. Claims 1, 12, and 13 are the independent claims
on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed
claims.
1. A location determination apparatus for determining a
location of a first ultrasound unit within an object (3), wherein
the location determination apparatus ( 1) comprises:
the first ultrasound unit comprising at least one ultrasound
transducer, a second ultrasound unit (5) comprising at least one
ultrasound transducer for being located outside the object (3),
wherein the at least one ultrasound transducer of the first
ultrasound unit and the at least one ultrasound transducer of the
second ultrasound unit ( 5) are adapted to transmit ultrasound
signals between them,
an ultrasound image generation unit (15) for generating an
ultrasound image of the object (3) based on ultrasound
information from at least one of the at least one ultrasound
transducer of the first ultrasound unit (7, 8, 9, 10) and the at least
one ultrasound transducer of the second ultrasound unit (5, 105,
110),
a location determination unit ( 6) for determining the
location of the first ultrasound unit within the object (3) with
respect to the ultrasound image based on the ultrasound signals
transmitted between the at least one ultrasound transducer of the
first ultrasound unit and the at least one ultrasound transducer of
the second ultrasound unit and the ultrasound information from
at least one of the first ultrasound unit and the second ultrasound
unit.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
2
Appeal2018-002188
Application 13/885,016
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Govari (US 2002/0107445 Al, pub. Aug. 8,
2002) ("Govari '445") and Panescu (US 2003/0093067 Al,
pub. May 15, 2003);
II. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Govari '445, Panescu, and Govari (US 7,575,550 Bl, iss.
Aug. 18, 2009) ("Govari '550");
III. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Govari '445, Panescu, and Smith et al. (US 5,515,853, iss.
May 14, 1996) ("Smith");
IV. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Govari '445, Panescu, and Lloyd (EP 1,362,553 Al, pub.
N"ov. I9,2003);and
V. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Govari '445, Panescu, and Altmann et al. (US 2006/0253032
Al, pub. N"ov. 9, 2006) ("Altmann").
AN"ALYSIS
Reiection I
To support the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Panescu's "Fig[ures] 1--4 and 7-10[,] and
para[graphs] 60-90" disclose the claimed image generation unit. Final
Action 3. Appellants argue that the Examiner errs because "Panescu does
not generate an ultrasound image of the object (3) based on ultrasound
information from the same ultrasound transducer(s) that transmit ultrasound
signals between them," where one transducer is inside the object and one is
3
Appeal2018-002188
Application 13/885,016
outside the object. Appeal Br. 11. Based on our review, the Examiner does
not support adequately that Panescu discloses an image generation unit as
claimed.
As set forth above, claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
the first ultrasound unit comprising at least one ultrasound
transducer, a second ultrasound unit (5) comprising at least one
ultrasound transducer for being located outside the object (3),
wherein the at least one ultrasound transducer of the first
ultrasound unit and the at least one ultrasound transducer of the
second ultrasound unit (5) are adapted to transmit ultrasound
signals between them, [and]
an ultrasound image generation unit (15) for generating
an ultrasound image of the object (3) based on ultrasound
information from at least one of the at least one ultrasound
transducer of the first ultrasound unit (7, 8, 9, 10) and the at least
one ultrasound transducer of the second ultrasound unit ( 5, 105,
110)
Appeal Br., Claims App. (Claim 1) ( emphases added). The Examiner cites
thirty-one consecutive paragraphs and twelve figures from Panescu. See
Final Action 3, 7. Although we have reviewed the cited portions and
drawings, we are unable to ascertain where Panescu discloses an image
generation unit that generates an ultrasound image of an object based on
ultrasound information from at least one ultrasound transducer that transmit
ultrasound signals between itself and another ultrasound transducer, where
one transducer is inside the body and the other is outside the object.
For example, Panescu discloses using ultrasound (Panescu ,r 60),
having transducers both inside and outside a patient's body (id. ,r 63),
receiving both reflected and transmitted ultrasound signals (id. ,r,r 65---66),
and a location processor that uses signals from both devices to generate a
location (id. ,r 67). Panescu further discloses additional location details, and
4
Appeal2018-002188
Application 13/885,016
using determined location and imagery for treatment. Id. ,r,r 68-76, 86-90.
Panescu also discloses generating imagery from an ultrasound transducer in
an inserted catheter. Id. ,r,r 77-85. It is not clear, however, that Panescu
generates an image using signals from a transducer that is one of two
transducers transmitting ultrasound signals therebetween, with one
transducer inside the body and the other outside the body.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain claim 1 's obviousness
rejection. We also do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 12 and 13, each of which includes a recitation similar to
that discussed above. Further, because we do not sustain independent claim
1 's rejection, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of its dependent
claims 2 and 4--7.
Reiections II-V
Claims 3, 8, 9, and 11 depend from independent claim 1. The
Examiner does not rely on any of Govari '550, Smith, Lloyd, or Altmann to
remedy the above-discussed deficiency in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain any of these dependent claims' rejections.
5
Appeal2018-002188
Application 13/885,016
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-9
and 11-13.
REVERSED
6