Ex Parte Koktzoglou

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2018

13111724 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2018)

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.
13/111,724 05/19/2011 Ioannis Koktzoglou 119152.00024.NSU-11-008 6061
26710 7590
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Attn: IP Docket
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2350
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4426
EXAMINER
KINNARD, LISA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2018 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IOANNIS KOKTZOGLOU
Appeal 2017-000932
Application 13/111,724
Technology Center 3700
Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, ELIZABETH A. LaVIER, and
KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant seeks review of the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The Specification relates to producing angiograms with magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), specifically using a “hybrid” radiofrequency (RF)
spin-labeling preparation using multiple RF labeling pulse sequence
modules. Spec. ^ 15.
Appeal 2017-000932
Application 13/111,724
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for acquiring a magnetic resonance angiography
(MRA) image of a portion of a vasculature of a subject during
one imaging study using a magnetic resonance imaging system,
the method comprising:
applying a first labeling pulse sequence to a first labeling
region having a first portion of a vasculature of a subject
extending through the first labeling region to label spins
moving within the first labeling region;
applying a second labeling pulse sequence to a second labeling
region having a second portion of a vasculature of the subject
extending through the second labeling region to label spins
moving within the second labeling region, wherein the first and
second labeling pulse sequences include different labeling
techniques',
applying an imaging pulse sequence to an imaging region
having a third portion of a vasculature of the subject extending
through the imaging region that is displaced from the first and
second labeling region to acquire imaging data from the spins
labeled by the first labeling pulse sequence and the second
labeling pulse sequence; and
reconstructing an MRA image of at least the third portion of the
vasculature of the subject from the medical imaging data.
Br. A-l (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).
REJECTIONS MAINTAINED ON APPEAL
1. Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-000932
Application 13/111,724
2. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamada1 and Miyazaki.2 Ans. 3.
3. Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamada, Miyazaki, and Ichinose.3 Ans. 7.
4. Claims 4-7 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamada, Miyazaki, and Alsop.4 Ans. 7.
5. Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamada, Miyazaki, and Manzione.5 Ans. 8.
DISCUSSION
A. Rejection 1
The Examiner finds (see Final Action 2) that claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14,
and 15 are indefinite because of their use of the relative term “substantially”
in the phrase “substantially continuous RF labeling technique” (Br. A-2, A-4
(Claims Appendix)). We disagree. As Appellant points out, the
Specification defines “substantially continuous labeling technique” as
referring to continuous or pseudo-continuous techniques. Br. 5; Spec. ^ 44.
Indeed, the Specification explains that this term is used because “even in the
case of a pseudo-continuous labeling technique the RF labeling pulses are
generally applied every few milliseconds” (Spec. ^ 44), and thus Appellant’s
use of “substantially continuous” in effect is an effort to be more precise, not
1 Yamada et al., US 2008/0061780 Al, published Mar. 13, 2008.
2 Miyazaki et al., US 2010/0198053 Al, published Aug. 5, 2010.
3 Ichinose et al., US 2009/0005670 Al, published Jan. 1, 2009.
4 Alsop, US 6,717,405 B2, issued Apr. 6, 2004.
5 Manzione et al., US 2008/0281181 Al, published Nov. 13, 2008.
3
Appeal 2017-000932
Application 13/111,724
less. The Examiner responds that the disclosure at paragraph 44 of the
Specification further compounds the problem because “generally” and a
“few milliseconds” are likewise relative or vague (Ans. 9), but the lack of a
precise numeric range in the Specification’s definition of “substantially
continuous” does not mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have readily understood the scope of the claims. Indeed, one of the cited
prior art references, Alsop, likewise acknowledges that “continuous” is not
used in a rigid sense when referring to arterial spin labeling (ASL):
The term ‘continuous’ does not preclude modulation of
amplitude or another property of the RF or other fields on a
time scale faster than the total duration of the RF waveform
which helps to achieve the labeling of the flowing fluid. Nor
does the term ‘continuous’ preclude a long pause between the
last time at which the RF amplitude is greater than zero and the
measurement of signal.
Alsop 5:7-13. This further supports Appellant’s position (see Br. 5) that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the manner in which
Appellant has used “substantially” in the claims, i.e., in an effort to more
accurately describe the nature of pulses commonly referred to as
“continuous” or “pseudo-continuous.”
We reverse Rejection 1.
B. Rejections 2—5
For each of the § 103 rejections, the Examiner relies on Miyazaki as
teaching the use of “different labeling techniques.” Final Action 4 (referring
to claim 1 and citing Miyazaki 50, 52, 53). Appellant acknowledges that
Miyazaki teaches two pulse sequences, but argues that only one of these is a
spin-labeling pulse sequence. See Br. 7-8. We agree with Appellant. The
4
Appeal 2017-000932
Application 13/111,724
cited portions of Miyazaki describe applying a first pulse sequence
(Miyazaki 52) and a second pulse sequence (id. ^ 53-54), but it is only
the second pulse sequence (the TIME-SLIP6 method, using multiple ASL
pulses) that is described as spin-labelled (id. at 54). As Appellant points
out, the exemplary first pulse sequences of Miyazaki (FASE or EASE7 and
SSFP8) are not described as incorporating spin labeling. See Br. 10-11.
Referring to Miyazaki’s SSFP and TIME-SLIP pulses, the Examiner
responds that “[t]he use of these two different pulse sequences has been
interpreted as different labeling techniques.” Ans. 10. The Examiner further
states that the term “different” is vague and could refer to “a myriad of
options such as pulse type, different lengths of time, or any number of
parameter selections.” Ans. 11 (citing Miyazaki 52-54, Yamada ^ 122-
124). Claim 1 does not simply require “different techniques,” however.
Rather, claim 1 recites “different labeling techniques,” i.e., the first and
second “labeling pulse sequence[s].” Br. A-l (Claims Appendix). Thus,
even though the Examiner is generally correct that “different” is a broad
term, claim 1 nonetheless requires two different labeling pulses using
different techniques. The Examiner has not clearly identified where in
Miyazaki two different labeling pulses are used; as discussed above,
paragraphs 52-54 of Miyazaki appear to describe a single labeling pulse
sequence, i.e., the TIME-SLIP pulse following the (non-labeling) SSFP or
FASE pulse. Yamada describes multiple labeling pulses separated in time
6 TIME-SLIP: time-spatial labeling inversion pulse. Miyazaki ^ 45.
7 FASE: fast asymmetric spin echo, or fast advanced spin echo. EASE: a spin
echo type of sequence. Miyazaki 47.
8 SSFP: steady state free precession. Miyazaki 46.
5
Appeal 2017-000932
Application 13/111,724
(see Yamada TJ 124), but this does not amount to teaching “different labeling
techniques.” Cf. Final Action 4 (finding that Yamada does not expressly
teach different labeling techniques).
As the Examiner has not clearly identified where Miyazaki teaches the
claimed “different labeling techniques,” and has not demonstrated that the
other cited references cure this deficiency, we reverse Rejections 2-5.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-16 are reversed.
REVERSED
6