Ex Parte Graw

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 8, 2012

10383280 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/383,280 03/07/2003 Ansgar Graw 2003P03416 US 1853
7590 06/08/2012
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
CHENG, JACQUELINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ANSGAR GRAW
________________

Appeal 2010-004742
Application 10/383,280
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004742
Application 10/383,280

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a
rejection of claims 8 and 10-18. Claim 9 has been cancelled and claims 1-7
withdrawn (Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter pertains to an imaging system having a
detector that may be moved from a patient loading position to an imagining
position. The claimed subject matter also pertains to patient chair that may
pivot from a loading position to an imagining position. Independent claim 8
is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
8. An imaging system comprising:
a gantry;
a detector movably mounted to the gantry such that the
detector may be moved from a patient loading position to
imaging position; and
a patient support having a patient chair, base, and a joint
connected at one end to the base and at the other end to the
patient chair, wherein the patient chair may pivot about the joint
from a relatively vertical loading position to a relatively
horizontal imaging position.

References Relied on by the Examiner
Yoshida US 5,008,624 Apr. 16, 1991
Kulpa US 5,249,838 Oct. 5, 1993
Damadian US 6,522,145 B1 Feb. 18, 2003
Damadian US 6,934,574 B1 Aug. 23, 2005
Damadian US 7,123,008 B1 Oct 17, 2006

Appeal 2010-004742
Application 10/383,280

3
The Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yoshida (Ans. 3).
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Damadian ʼ008 (Ans. 4).
3. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yoshida and Damadian ʼ574 (Ans. 5).
4. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshida, Damadian ʼ574 and Kulpa (Ans. 5).
5. Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshida (Ans. 5).
6. Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Damadian ʼ145 (Ans. 6).

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 8, 10, 11
as being anticipated by Yoshida
Appellant argues claims 8, 10 and 11 together (Br. 5). We select
independent claim 8 for review with claims 10 and 11 standing or falling
with claim 8 (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011)).
Appellant initially argues that due to the U-shaped nature of
Yoshida’s detector (i.e., frame 2), “there exists no obstruction and thus no
need to move the frame 2 between any ‘loading’ position and an imaging
position” (Br. 5). Claim 8 does not require a need to move the frame but
instead claim 8 requires a detector “movably mounted” so that “the detector
may be moved.” Yoshida teaches that frame 2 may rotate (Yoshida 3:44-45,
3:64-65). We thus agree with the Examiner that Yoshida’s “detector has a
Appeal 2010-004742
Application 10/383,280

4
structure that makes it capable of being moved” (Ans. 4, 7-8). Accordingly,
Appellant’s contention is not persuasive.
Appellant also contends that there is no disclosure in Yoshida of any
adjustment of the patient carrier “after the patient has been placed in the
chair” (Br. 5-6). This is not a claim requirement and accordingly this
contention is not persuasive.
Appellant contends that Yoshida “teaches against the claimed
invention by teaching that the patient is imaged in positions ‘other than lying
flat’” (Br. 6). We disagree. The Examiner cites to Yoshida’s discussion of
imaging in a standing posture “as well as a lying flat posture” and Appellant
does not indicate how the Examiner’s reliance on this citation is in error
(Ans. 4 citing Yoshida 6:9-11; see also Ans. 8-9).
Appellant contends that the citations relied upon by the Examiner
disclose a patient carrier that may be moved up and down but fail to teach
pivoting about a joint (Br. 6). Claim 8 requires that “the patient chair may
pivot about the joint from a relatively vertical loading position to a relatively
horizontal imaging position” and the Examiner’s citations refer both to the
chair’s ability to move up and down as well as the chair’s reclining
mechanism (Ans. 4 citing Yoshida 3:64 to 4:4 and 6:9-11). In a further
description of the chair’s reclining mechanism, Yoshida teaches that the
upper body rest 5, seat 6, leg rest 7 and foot rest 8 are all “connected and
adjustable at arbitrary angles” (Yoshida 3:47-56, see also Fig. 2(A)). In
view of Yoshida’s disclosure, we do not find the Examiner erred in
concluding that “the patient chair may pivot about the joint” as claimed
(Ans. 4).
Appeal 2010-004742
Application 10/383,280

5
Appellant contends that “[t]he claims do not set forth movement of a
detector” and thus, because the Examiner alleges that the detector of
Yoshida “may be moved,” the rejection is not directed to the claimed
invention (Br. 6-7). We disagree with Appellant and agree with the
Examiner that claim 8 requires “that the detector may be moved” (Ans. 9).
As discussed supra, the Examiner properly found that Yoshida’s detector is
rotatable and hence is capable of movement as claimed.
Appellant further contends that Yoshida’s “magnetic resonance
imaging apparatus is not a nuclear medicine imaging apparatus as claimed”
(Br. 7). This contention is not persuasive as the preamble of claim 8 only
specifies “[a]n imaging system” and Yoshida’s magnetic resonance imaging
apparatus is such a system (see Ans. 10).
In view of the record presented, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that “Yoshida at least meets all the structural limitations” recited and that
Yoshida’s detector and chair may be moved or pivoted as claimed (Ans. 10).
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, 10 and 11 is sustained.

The rejection of method claim 15
as being anticipated by Damadian ʼ008
Independent claim 15 is directed to a method of using a nuclear
medicine imaging system. Appellant initially contends that “Damadian 008
is directed to a magnetic resonance apparatus, which is not a nuclear
medicine imaging system” (Br. 8). Assuming arguendo Appellant’s
assertion is correct, the Examiner notes that “applicant has only claimed
nuclear medicine imaging system in the preamble” and that the claimed
method steps “are not particular” to such a system and instead “can be used
for imaging systems in general” (Ans. 10). The Examiner further states that
Appeal 2010-004742
Application 10/383,280

6
“the examiner does not believe that the claim preamble breathes life,
meaning or vitality to the claim, nor does the claim preamble give a
manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art”
(Ans. 10). We agree with the Examiner and do not find Appellant’s
contention persuasive.
Appellant also contends that “the patient support of Damadian is not
required to be moved from the vertical position before imaging is
performed” (Br. 8). The Examiner notes that “this is not required by the
method of claim 15” (Ans. 11). Even if it was, the Examiner identifies
where Damadian ʼ008 discloses imaging in both the horizontal and vertical
positions (Ans. 11 citing Damadian ʼ008 13:10-15, 13:26-27, 13:36-38).
In view of the record presented, Appellant’s contentions are not
persuasive and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.

The rejection of claim 12 as being unpatentable
over Yoshida and Damadian ʼ574
Dependent claim 12 requires a chair having a back and a seat wherein
the seat moves “away from the bottom edge of the back and towards the top
edge of the back.” Appellant initially contends that “Damadian 574 fails to
make up for the deficiencies of Yoshida” but as no deficiencies in Yoshida
were found, this contention is not persuasive (Br. 8). Appellant further
contends that there “is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in Damadian
574 from which one of ordinary skill in the art would have attempted any
modification of Yoshida” (Br. 8). The Supreme Court does not require such
a rigid test but instead has provided instruction that to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner must provide some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
Appeal 2010-004742
Application 10/383,280

7
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Here, the Examiner references Figure 7 of
Damadian ʼ574 as disclosing a chair whose seat moves (“translates”) with
respect to the back (Ans. 5 citing Damadian ʼ574 6:29-39). The Examiner
states that it would be obvious “to add such mobility to the chair of Yoshida
for the purpose of raising and lower a patient position on the seat” such as if
the patient were a child (Ans. 5, see also 11-12). In view of the record
presented, Appellant’s contention is not persuasive. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.

The rejection of claims 13 and 14 as being unpatentable
over Yoshida, Damadian ʼ574 and Kulpa
Claim 13 and 14 depend directly and indirectly from claim 12 and
Appellant contends that “Kulpa et al. similarly fails to teach any of the
features of the present invention as claimed that are missing from Yoshida
and/or Damadian 574 as explained above” (Br. 9). Because we find no
deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 based on Yoshida and
Damadian ʼ574 supra, we sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14.

The rejection of claims 15-18
as being unpatentable over Yoshida
Appellant argues claims 15-18 together (Br. 10). We select
independent method claim 15 for review with claims 16-18 standing or
falling with claim 15. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s “rejection is
based completely on conjecture and conclusory statements, and rests neither
on any teaching or suggestion found in Yoshida nor on any reasoned basis”
(Br. 10). Other than proffer these generalities, Appellant has not identified
any specific examples as to how the Examiner’s reasoning is in error or why
Appeal 2010-004742
Application 10/383,280

8
the subject matter of these claims would not have been obvious as stated by
the Examiner (Ans. 13-14). Accordingly, based on the record presented, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15-18.

The rejection of claims 15-18
as being unpatentable over Damadian ʼ145
We select method claim 15 for review as before. Appellant argues
that the Examiner’s rejection does not address the particular claim language
recited and that Damadian ʼ145 is directed to MRI imaging which is not
nuclear medicine imaging (Br. 10). This latter argument has been discussed
supra and is not persuasive for similar reasons while Appellant’s former
argument is likewise not persuasive as the Examiner has addressed the
language of claim 15 and identified where Damadian ʼ145 discloses same
(Ans. 6-7). Appellant further contends that the support shown in Figures 12
and 13 of Damadian ʼ145 “is not a patient chair, but a flat bed support” (Br.
10). We instead agree with the Examiner’s reference to Damadian ʼ145
stating that “[b]ody rest 137 may also possess a seat shown by dashed line to
sit the vertically oriented patient when desired” (Ans. 15 citing Damadian
ʼ145 13:26-27). Appellant also contends that “there is no requirement for
the flat patient bed to be rotated to an imaging position different than the
position shown in Fig. 12” (Br. 10). This contention is not persuasive as the
Examiner identifies Figure 13 of Damadian ʼ145 showing the bed rotated to
a horizontal imaging position from the vertical position illustrated in Figure
12 (Ans. 15). Damadian ʼ145 teaches imaging in both vertical and
horizontal orientations (Damadian ʼ145 13:31-46). The Examiner finds that
“it would be obvious to image a patient in either a horizontal position or
vertical position depending upon the study to be done” (Ans. 15). In view of
Appeal 2010-004742
Application 10/383,280

9
the record presented, Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive and we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-18.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 8 and 10-18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

MP