Ex Parte Koudijs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

13383671 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/383,671 01112/2012 Johannes Cornelis Koudijs
24737 7590 08/12/2016
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.
2009P0088 l WOUS 8271
EXAMINER
ELBINGER, STEVEN Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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 JOHANNES CORNELIS KOUDIJS, MARTIN BERGTHOLDT,
HEINRICH SCHULZ, HUBERT CECILE FRANCOIS MARTENS,
GERRIT-JAN BLOEM, and JOHAN GERARD KLEIBEUKER
Appeal2015-000521
Application 13/383,671
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, HUNG H. BUI, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejections of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Phillips
Electronics N.V.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed June 23, 2014
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed October 06, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed August 07, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
(Footnote continued on next page.)
Appeal2015-000521
Application 13/383,671
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method of visualizing a surgical
path for a surgical tool to enter and navigate safely in a human body for
surgery, while avoiding damage of internal organs and critical anatomical
structures. Spec. 2:7-15.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants' invention, as reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized
below:
1. A method of visualizing a surgical path for a
surgical tool, the method comprising:
- rece1vmg:
- anatomical information about a position of at least one
anatomical structure in a region to undergo surgery,
- geometric information describing the surgical path, and
- at least one safety margin defining a minimal distance
between the surgical tool and the anatomical stn.1cture,
- defining a critical segment of the surgical path, the
critical segment having a distance to the anatomical structure
smaller than the safety margin, and
- providing a graphical representation of the surgical
path, wherein the critical segment is highlighted.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App'x.).
Evidence Considered
Winston US 6,842,639 Bl Jan. 11, 2005
January 31, 2014 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed January 12,
2012 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2015-000521
Application 13/383,671
Haim et al.
("Haim")
Gundel
Rodriguez Ponce et al.
("Rodriguez")
Arneson et al.
("Arneson")
US 2006/0184029 Al
US 2007 /0049861 Al
US 2007 /0244387 Al
US 2011/0004059 Al
Examiner's Rejections
Aug. 17, 2006
Mar. 1, 2007
Oct.18,2007
Jan. 6, 2011
(1) Claims 1, 3, 5, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Rodriguez. Final Act. 3-9.
(2) Claims 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rodriguez and Gundel. Final Act. 9-12.
(3) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodriguez and Haim. Final Act. 12-13.
(4) Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodriguez and Winston. Final Act. 13.
(5) Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodriguez, Winston, and Arneson. Final Act. 15-16.
ANALYSIS
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 11-13 based on Rodriguez Ponce
With respect to independent claims 1 and 13, the Examiner finds
Rodriguez teaches a method of visualizing a surgical path for a surgical tool,
shown in Figures lA-lB, including, inter alia: the steps of "defining a
critical segment of the surgical path, the critical segment having a distance to
the anatomical structure smaller than the safety margin," and "providing a
graphical representation of the surgical path, wherein the critical segment is
3
Appeal2015-000521
Application 13/383,671
highlighted." Final Act. 3-5, 7 (citing Rodriguez ilil 13, 23-24) (emphasis
omitted).
Figures IA-IB of Rodriguez Ponce are reproduced below:
J
~ :!
: :i 4
'
I \
t \ /
\, ! ' i ,/
}
' ,; I ~ ........ ..__~~-_... . '" t
\ ... _.• \i \ ,, 2 ,-
~\
3
Figure IA of Rodriguez Ponce shows a surgical path of catheter 4 to target
region 3 for treatment but bends toward anatomical structure 2, while Figure
1 B shows the same surgical path of catheter 4 to target region 2 avoiding
anatomical structure 2.
Appellants acknowledge Rodriguez teaches "defining critical regions
or structures, these regions or structures are specifically the location of
anatomical structures which preferably should not be harmed." App. Br. 9
(citing Rodriguez i-f 13) (emphasis in original). However, Appellants argue
Rodriguez does not teach "defining critical segments of the surgical path
which have a distance to an anatomical structure smaller than the safety
margin" and "providing a graphical representation of the surgical path
wherein the critical segment is highlighted" as recited in claim 1. Id. at 9;
Reply Br. 6.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants'
4
Appeal2015-000521
Application 13/383,671
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2-8; Final Act.
3-16. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided
therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note that an anticipatory reference
need not duplicate, word for word, what is in the claims. Standard Havens
Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Even in the context of anticipation, "it is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda,
401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
As acknowledged by Appellants, Rodriguez teaches displaying critical
regions (i.e., critical structures) in the surgical areas that should be avoided
by a surgical path or trajectory. App. Br. 7. However, Rodriguez also
teaches when a surgical trajectory becomes too close to these critical
regions, the critical regions are color-coded and include the proximity of the
path to these critical regions. See Rodriguez i-fi-123-24. As recognized by
the Examiner, "[ d]ifferent risk levels can be determined based on proximity
(safety margin) of a critical physiological structure to the surgical
trajectory." Ans. 3 (citing Rodriguez i-fi-120, 24). A warning is then provided
if the surgical trajectory falls inside a virtual wall or border (safety margin)
around a critical structure. Id. at 3 (citing Rodriguez i124).
In both Rodriguez and Appellants' claimed invention, when a planned
surgical path and an internal structure to be avoided become close in
proximity with one another, the user is notified by either highlighting the
structures that are too close, or the specific area of the path that is too close.
In particular, Rodriguez teaches "displaying the specific or critical region or
5
Appeal2015-000521
Application 13/383,671
structure together with the planned trajectory on the image of the internal
structure of the body." See Rodriguez claim 10 (emphasis added).
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and similarly independent claim 13, as well as their
respective dependent claims 3, 5, 11 and 12, which Appellants do not argue
separately.
With respect to the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 2, 4, and 6-10, Appellants reiterate the same patentability arguments
presented against claim 1. App. Br. 11-17. For the same reasons discussed,
we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6