Ex Parte Matsinos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12652248 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/652,248 01/05/2010
76260 7590 07/05/2016
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Evangelos Matsinos
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.
08-046-US (8632/97024) 1761
EXAMINER
TON, TRIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2877
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
mail@fitcheven.com
ipdocket@varian.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATSINOS EV ANGELOS
Appeal2014-003424
Application 12/652,248
Technology Center 2800
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests rehearing of the Decision on Appeal mailed March
21, 2016 (the "Decision"), in which we reversed the Examiner's rejections
of claims 1-10 and 13-22 and entered new grounds of rejection. See
Request for Rehearing filed May 23, 2016 (the "Req. Reh'g"). We have
reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellant's arguments; however, we
are not persuaded of any error therein.
Appeal2014-003424
Application 12/652,248
DISCUSSION
In our Decision, we found "Chen discloses the 'block' recited in
claims 1 and 13, because Chen describes using collimators. See Chen i-fi-15,
16, 44, and 57. "One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
claimed block---consistent with the Specification- reasonably encompasses
the collimators of Chen." Decision 4--5. In the Request for Rehearing,
Appellant argues the Specification defines the expression "block," and "as
clearly established by our specification ... the word 'block' refers to
'patient-proximal' devices to the exclusion of devices that 'are positioned
very close to the source of radiation (e.g. primary collimator[ s ]). "' Req.
Reh'g 2 (quoting Spec. i13). Appellant contends "Chen's references to
blocks and collimators, however, is general enough to include collimators
that are positioned very close to the source of radiation and hence that are
excluded by our word 'block"' (Req. Reh'g 4), and thus "Chen cannot be
fairly relied upon as anticipatory reference in these specific regards because
'patient-proximal' devices are not necessarily present." Req. Reh' g 4--5.
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed "block" precludes Chen's teachings.
Appellant's Specification states the devices "may be placed very close to the
patient. The latter are sometimes referred to as patient collimators or blocks
(hereinafter, the expression 'block' will be used to refer to such a patient-
proximal device)." Spec. i1 3. We note the Specification provides no
description of what amount of distance constitutes "proximal" or "very
close." Id. Accordingly, we find the recited "block" broadly but reasonably
2
Appeal2014-003424
Application 12/652,248
encompasses the collimators and/or "metal blocks" of Chen. 1 See Chen
i-f 44; Decision 4--5. Thus, Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of
error in the Decision.
DECISION
We have granted Appellant's request to the extent that we have
reconsidered our Decision, but we deny the request with respect to making
any changes therein.
DENIED
1 Further, Appellant's Specification also states that "[i]deally, such a block
will frame the treatment volume in a manner that exposes only portions of
the patient's body that require radiation treatment while preventing such
exposure for other portions of the patient's body." Spec. i-f 4. Chen likewise
discloses the target shape is used to define the shape of the collimator (Chen
i-fi-1 16, 57) and "metal blocks are put in the path of the radiation beam to
change the shape of the beam so that it conforms more closely to the shape
of the target" to avoid including "healthy tissue;" these blocks would
necessarily be "proximal" to the patient in order to properly shape the beam.
Chen i-f 44.
3