Ex Parte Nielsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

14425669 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/425,669 03/04/2015 Tim Nielsen
24737 7590 07/30/2018
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.
2012P00949WOUS 2404
EXAMINER
BLOSS, STEPHANIE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIM NIELSEN and PETER BORNERT
Appeal 2018-003351
Application 14/425,669
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and BRIAND. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-15, 20-24, 26, and 27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") submitted March 4, 2015; Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") dated May 22, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed September 29, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
December 18, 2017; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated
February 5, 2018.
2 Appellant is Applicant, Koninklijke Philips, N.V., which also is identified
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-003351
Application 14/425,669
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to control of magnetic resonance
imaging data acquisition to address image defects caused by patient
movement. Spec. 1. Generally, imaging data is reconstructed as a two or
three dimensional visualization of anatomic information. Id. at 5. Patient
motion during imaging can compromise the diagnostic quality of the
resulting images. Id. at 1. Appellant discloses a solution to patient motion
in which navigator data-magnetic resonance data representative of a
subject's location or state of motion-is acquired, analyzed, and used
iteratively to control the magnetic resonance system to modify the image
data acquisition, such as instructing the system to alter how the image data is
acquired or to reacquire a portion of the image data. Id. at 5, 12, 14, 16.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from
the Claims Appendix of Appellant's Appeal Brief below:
1. A magnetic resonance imaging system for
acquiring magnetic resonance data from an imaging zone,
wherein the magnetic resonance imaging system comprises:
one or more computer processors configured for
controlling the magnetic resonance imaging system to image a
patient in an imaging zone of the magnetic resonance imaging
system, the patient undergoing patient motion; and
a memory configured for storing machine executable
instructions for execution by the processor, wherein execution
of the machine executable instructions causes the one or more
processors to:
control the magnetic resonance imaging system to
repeatedly acquire the magnetic resonance data from the
imaging zone, the magnetic resonance data including
magnetic resonance anatomic image data and magnetic
resonance navigator data;
create a set of navigator vectors from the magnetic
resonance navigator data;
2
Appeal 2018-003351
Application 14/425,669
construct a dissimilarity matrix by calculating a
metric indicative of a dissimilarity between each
navigator vector of the set of navigator vectors;
determine a matrix classification of the
dissimilarity matrix using a classification algorithm, the
matrix classification being indicative of patient motion;
control the magnetic resonance imaging system to
modify acquisition of the magnetic resonance data based
on the determined matrix classification; and
reconstruct the magnetic resonance anatomic
image data into at least one anatomic image; and
a display device configured to display the at least one
anatomic image.
Independent claim 20 similarly is directed to a magnetic resonance
system, including at least one computer processor configured to modify
control of the system based on acquired navigator data. Independent claims
15 and 21 recite corresponding machine readable instructions and imaging
method, respectively. Each of the remaining claims on appeal depends from
claim 1, 15, 20, or 21.
REJECTION3
Claims 1---6, 8, 9, 12-15, 20-24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
OPINION
As defined by the Patent Act, patent-eligible subject matter includes
"any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
3 The Examiner's rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is withdrawn.
Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2018-003351
Application 14/425,669
courts have created certain exceptions to the literal scope of§ 101. In
particular, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Since Alice, patent-eligibility has been determined using a two-step
process. In step one, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed
to a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If
the claims are not directed to one of the judicial exceptions, the inquiry ends.
See Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are held to be directed to one of the judicial exceptions, we
proceed to step two. In this step, we determine whether the claims contain
"an 'inventive concept' ... that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)) (alteration in
original, emphasis added).
The Examiner determines that Appellant's claims are directed to the
abstract idea of collecting, manipulating, analyzing, and displaying data.
Final Act. ,r 8. The Examiner finds that the claims, therefore, are directed to
a judicial exception from patent eligible subject matter. The Examiner
further finds that the additional elements recited in the claims do not amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to
conventional features of magnetic resonance imaging. Id.
Appellant relies on the same arguments with regard to each of the
independent claims. Particularly, Appellant argues, inter alia, that the
claims on appeal are directed to an improved technique for controlling a
magnetic resonance scanner based on the results of a computer process.
4
Appeal 2018-003351
Application 14/425,669
App. Br. 10, 13. Appellant cites Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) for
the proposition that "controlling the execution of a physical process or
machine by running a computer program is not precluded from patent
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101." Id. at 10. Thus, Appellant contends that
the Examiner erred in determining that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea. Id. at 13, 15-16, 18-19; Reply Br. 4---6. We agree.
When considering whether the claims are directed to a patent-
ineligible concept, "[t]he 'directed to' inquiry ... cannot simply ask whether
the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every
routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions
involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon." See Enfish, 822 F.3d
at 1335-36 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 70-71). Rather, "the 'directed to'
inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims" considered in their entirety, in
light of the Specification, to ascertain whether the claims' character as a
whole is directed to excluded subject matter. Id. ( citing Internet Patents
Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Having reviewed the evidence, we disagree with the Examiner's
determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of collecting,
manipulating, analyzing, and displaying data. That characterization of
Appellant's claims disregards the claim language regarding iterative control
of the magnetic resonance imaging system. See e.g. Claim 1 ("control the
magnetic resonance imaging system to modify acquisition of the magnetic
resonance data based on the determined matrix classification"); Claim 15
("control the magnetic resonance imaging system to modify acquisition of
the magnetic resonance data using the matrix classification"); Claim 20
("modify the controlling of the magnetic resonance imaging system based on
5
Appeal 2018-003351
Application 14/425,669
the determined matrix classification"); Claim 21 ("modifying the controlling
of the magnetic resonance imaging system based on the determined matrix
classification with the one or more processors"). Rather, we conclude that
the character of the claims as a whole is directed to an improved magnetic
resonance imaging technique involving iterative control of imaging data
acquisition, particularly in response to patient movement. The Specification
supports our conclusion. See e.g. Spec.; Abstract ("The invention provides
for a magnetic resonance imaging system for acquiring magnetic resonance
data. A processor ... executes instructions ... to repeatedly: control the
magnetic resonance imaging system to acquire a portion of the magnetic
resonance data ... ; construct a dissimilarity matrix by calculating a metric
between each of the set of navigator vectors ... ; and control the magnetic
resonance imaging system to modify acquisition of the magnetic resonance
data using the matrix classification.") (internal reference numerals omitted).
Rather than merely collecting and displaying data, the claims on
appeal are directed to use of that data to direct subsequent operations-
namely, to control the imaging system to reacquire magnetic resonance data
in an unconventional way to rectify previously acquired data that was
compromised by patient movement. In that way, Appellant's claims are like
those before the Court in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals International Limited, 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In
Vanda, the Court distinguished claims involving using acquired patient
information to modify a drug administration regimen from the claims at
issue in Mayo, which involved acquiring patient information but did not
require any particular use of the acquired information. Vanda 887 F.3d at
1134--5. The Court found the claims in Vanda were not directed to an
6
Appeal 2018-003351
Application 14/425,669
abstract idea, under Alice step one, because they involved using the acquired
data to direct a treatment program. Similarly, in this case, the claims involve
use of acquired data to direct operation of a magnetic resonance imaging
system. As such, these claims are not directed to an abstract idea and,
accordingly, the claims survive Alice step one.
Because we find the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, we
need not proceed to step two. The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7