Ex Parte Igney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13148677 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/148,677 09/09/2011 Claudia Hannelore Igney
24737 7590 09/01/2016
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.
2009P00286WOUS 4081
EXAMINER
KINNARD, LISA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLAUDIA HANNELORE IGNEY, MATTHIAS HAMSCH,
PETER MAZURKEWITZ, and KAI-MICHAEL LUEDEKE
Appeal 2014-007 669
Application 13/148,677
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claudia Hannelore Igney et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 The Final Office Action also includes an objection to claim 10. Final Act.
2. Appellants filed a proposed amendment to address the objection (see
After-Final Arndt. filed Oct. 3, 2012), but the Examiner refused to enter the
amendment (see Advisory. Act. dated Dec. 10, 2013). Appellants request
reconsideration of the Examiner's refusal to enter the proposed amendment.
Appeal Br. 8. However, this is a petitionable issue, not an appealable issue.
Appeal2014-007669
Application 13/148,677
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosure "relates to magnetic induction tomography, in
particular to a method and a device that reduce the dynamic range of
measurement coils in magnetic induction tomography." Spec. 1, 11. 5---6.
Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A device for reconstructing images of an object of
interest, comprising:
a plurality of transmitting coils for generating a primary
magnetic field;
a plurality of measurement coils; and
a selector configured to select and excite a first pair of
transmitting coils among the plurality of transmitting coils,
wherein the first pair of transmitting coils are selected and
excited in a way such that the primary magnetic field generated
by the first pair of transmitting coils is minimized at a location
of at least one measurement coil among the plurality of
measurement coils, and wherein a first measurement coil of the
plurality of measurement coils selected for measurement of a
secondary magnetic field is located near and between the first
pair of transmitting coils, and a second measurement coil of the
plurality of measurement coils selected for the measurement is
located opposite the first measurement coil.
Br. 18 (Claims App.).
See 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.127 ("From the refusal of the primary examiner to admit
an amendment, in whole or in part, a petition will lie to the Commissioner
under§ 1.181."). Also, we note claim 10 in the Claims Appendix does not
include the term "device," although the amendment was not entered. Appeal
Br. 21 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2014-007669
Application 13/148,677
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over S. Watson et al., "A comparison of sensors for minimizing
the primary signal in planar-array magnetic induction tomography," Physiol.
Meas., vol. 26 (2005), pp. S319--S331 (hereafter "Watson"), Overweg (WO
2007/49824 A2, published Dec. 27, 2007), and Clark (US 6,297,639 Bl,
issued Oct. 2, 2001 ).
II. Claims 3-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Watson, Overweg, Clark, and Michael A. Ohliger et al.,
"Concentric Coil Arrays for Parallel MRI," Magnetic Resonance in
Medicine, vol. 54 (2005), pp. 1248-1260 (hereafter "Ohliger").
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds Watson discloses a device for reconstructing
images of an object of interest; comprising; inter alia:
a device that selects and excites a first pair of transmitting coils
among the plurality of transmitting coils [section 2.3 .1,
paragraph l] wherein the first pair of transmitting coils are
selected and excited in a way such that the primary magnetic
field generated by the first pair of transmitting coils is minimized
at the location of at least one measurement coil among the
plurality of measurement coils [section 1, paragraphs 1 and 2;
Figure 1 caption].
Final Act. 2-3 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend the applied references fail to disclose or suggest:
a selector configured to select and excite a first pair of
transmitting coils among the plurality of transmitting coils,
wherein the first pair of transmitting coils are selected and
excited in a way such that the primary magnetic field generated
by the first pair of transmitting coils is minimized at a location
3
Appeal2014-007669
Application 13/148,677
of at least one measurement coil among the plurality of
measurement coils, and wherein a first measurement coil of the
plurality of measurement coils selected for measurement of a
secondary magnetic field is located near and between the first
pair of transmitting coils, and a second measurement coil of the
plurality of measurement coils selected for the measurement is
located opposite the first measurement coil.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellants contend that, in Watson, "[a]ny discussion
regarding minimizing a field is confined to a field generated by a single
excitation coil." Id. at 9.
The Examiner's position is that, "while Watson discusses
minimization of a field in a single coil, Watson later discloses that the
method can be extended to a plurality of coils [section 2.3 .1, paragraph 1]."
Advisory Act. 2 (emphasis added).
The caption of Figure 1 of Watson states: "Illustration of minimizing
the response to the primary field from a single excitation coil (Tx) for (a)
three axial gradiometers (Rxl-Rx3) and (b) three Bx sensors. In each case
all three sensors detect no primary signal." Watson S320 (emphasis added);
Fig. 1. Watson states that "[m]inimizing the response of the sensors to the
primary field while retaining responsiveness to the eddy-current field can
therefore produce very significant improvements in the system's signal to
noise ratio and allow it to operate at lower frequencies." Id.
Section 2.3.1, first paragraph, of Watson describes a coil array shown
in Figure 3. Id. at S323-S324; Fig. 3. The illustrated coil array includes a
line of four excitation coils Le1--4 and a line of eight sensor coils Lm1--S. Id.
The Examiner states that "applicant appears to agree that Watson does
disclose the claim limitation involving magnetic field minimization in a
single excitation coil." Ans. 11. This statement does not address
4
Appeal2014-007669
Application 13/148,677
Appellants' contention, however. Claim 1 does not recite "magnetic field
minimization in a single excitation coil." Appellants contend Watson does
not disclose or suggest minimizing, at a measurement coil, a magnetic field
generated by a pair of transmitting coils. We agree with Appellants so far as
the Examiner does not explain adequately how section 2.3.1, paragraph 1, of
Watson discloses or suggests "extend[ing] any minimization to any plurality
of coils." Appeal Br. 12. Although the coil array in Figure 3 of Watson
includes a plurality of excitation coils and sensor coils, the Examiner does
not explain how this figure and section 2.3 .1, paragraph 1, disclose or
suggest the claim limitation of "the first pair of transmitting coils are
selected and excited in a way such that the primary magnetic field generated
by the first pair of transmitting coils is minimized at a location of at least one
measurement coil among the plurality of measurement coils." Thus, the
Examiner's finding is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Claim 1 also recites "a selector configured to select and excite a first
pair of transmitting coils among the plurality of transmitting coils." Appeal
Br. 18 (Claims App., emphasis added). The Examiner determines that
"Watson does not explicitly disclose details regarding selectors and specific
coil arrangements." Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds Overweg discloses a selector 20. Id. (citing
Overweg, p. 4, 11. 13-16). Overweg discloses that the magnetic field
gradient coils 20 are operated by magnetic field gradient controllers 22.
Overweg, p. 4, 11. 16-17.
Appellants' Specification describes "means 150 for selecting and
exciting a first pair of transmitting coils 102, 116." Spec. p. 4, 11. 19-20; see
also Fig. 1. The Specification also states, for selection of the pairs of
5
Appeal2014-007669
Application 13/148,677
transmitting coils, "[t]he selection can be advantageously implemented by
means of a computer program." Id. at p. 6, 11. 29-30.
Appellants contend the applied references also fail to disclose or
suggest the claimed "selector." Reply Br. 4. Appellants assert the claimed
selector is "configured to select particular transmitting and measurement coil
to minimize fields generated by the selected transmitting coils at a location
of the selected at least one measurement coil." Id. at 5.
These contentions are persuasive. The "capable of' test requires that
the prior art structure be capable of performing the function without further
programming. Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d
1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing Microprocessor Enhancement Corp.
v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). When the
claimed functional language is associated with programming or some other
structure required to perform the function, that programming or structure
must be present in order to meet the claim limitation. Id.
It is not apparent how Overweg's magnetic field gradient coils 20 are
"configured to select and excite a first pair of transmitting coils among the
plurality of transmitting coils." Even if Overweg' s magnetic field gradient
controllers 22 are also considered part of its "selector," the Examiner does
not identify any disclosure in Overweg that the "selector" is "configured to
select particular transmitting and measurement coil to minimize fields
generated by the selected transmitting coils at a location of the selected at
least one measurement coil." Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added). Even if
Overweg's magnetic field gradient controllers 22 may be capable of being
programmed or "configured" (i.e., modified) to perform the claimed
6
Appeal2014-007669
Application 13/148,677
function of the selector, which the Examiner does not address, this does not
show that controllers 22 are "configured to" meet the claimed function.
Furthermore, Clark describes, "[i]n addition to providing selective
attenuation of EM energy component, the strip 20 acts as a Faraday shield to
reduce capacitive coupling between coils, without attenuating the desired
components of the magnetic field." Clark, col. 8, 11. 27-31. Appellants'
contention that the Examiner's findings for Clark do not cure the
deficiencies of Watson and Overweg is persuasive. Appeal Br. 11.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claim
2 as unpatentable over Watson, Overweg, and Clark.
Claim 6 recites a method of reconstructing images of an object of
interest. Appeal Br. 19-20 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 6, the
Examiner relies on the same disclosure in Watson as for claim 1. Final Act.
4--5. The Examiner finds that Watson discloses "generating a primary
magnetic field to be applied to the object of interest by the first pair of
transmitting coils" (id. at 4, emphasis added) and "wherein the first pair of
transmitting coils is selected and excited in a way such that the primary
magnetic field generated by the first pair of transmitting coils is minimized
at the location of the at least one measurement coil" (id. at 5, emphasis
added). For reasons discussed above, however, these findings are not
supported by the preponderance of the evidence. The rejection of claim 7
suffers from the same deficiencies. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 6 and dependent claim 7 as unpatentable over Watson,
Overweg, and Clark.
7
Appeal2014-007669
Application 13/148,677
Re} ection II
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 1 and claims 8-10 depend from claim
6. The Examiner's application of Ohliger does not cure the deficiencies of
the rejection of claims 1 and 6. Final Act. 6-9. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 3-5 and 8-10 as unpatentable over Watson,
Overweg, Clark, and Ohliger.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10.
REVERSED
8