Ex Parte Ohgishi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

13336533 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017)

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.
13/336,533 12/23/2011 Norifumi Ohgishi 244287-2 1506
61604 7590 10/25/2017
GE Healthcare, IP Department
9900 W. Innovation Drive
Mail Code RP2131
Wauwatosa, WI 53226
EXAMINER
TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2017 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):
HCT echnologies @ ge. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORIFUMI OHGISHI and YUKITOSHI SHIMO
Appeal 2017-003885
Application 13/336,533
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 13, and 15—26. App. Br. 2.2 Claims 2, 4, 5, 7—12,
and 14 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as GE Medical Systems Global
Technology Company, LLC. App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed October 16, 2015, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 18,
2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 3, 2016, and
(4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 3, 2017.
Appeal 2017-003885
Application 13/336,533
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
apparatus having a display viewable by the subject being imaged. Spec. 1 6.
Typically, an MRI’s bore is a narrow space. Id. 12. So, to provide (1) a
sense of safety for claustrophobic subjects and (2) necessary instructions for
subjects with a hearing disability, Appellants position a display inside the
bore. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A magnetic resonance imaging apparatus configured to collect
magnetic resonance signals from a human being, the apparatus
comprising:
a magnetic field generating device configured to generate
a magnetic field within an accommodation space that is
configured to accommodate the human being, wherein the
magnetic field generating device is located in a shielded room,
and wherein the accommodation space is enclosed by the
magnetic field generating device and is defined by a table
configured to support the human being and a sidewall that forms
sides and a top of the accommodation space;
an electronic display coupled to and conforming to the
sidewall that forms the sides and the top of the accommodation
space, the electronic display configured to display predetermined
information for viewing by the human being;
a control device located outside of the shielded
room and configured to control the electronic display; and
a cable connecting the electronic display to the
control device, the cable comprising:
signal lines;
an inner shield covering the signal lines and
extending a first length; and
an outer shield located outside of the inner
shield and extending a second length that is less
than the first length, wherein the outer shield is
provided on a side of the cable proximate the
2
Appeal 2017-003885
Application 13/336,533
electronic display, and wherein the inner shield and
the outer shield form a double-shield structure.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Nakabayashi US 5,028,872
Coffin, IV et al. US 6,184,521 B1
Vangdal US 2009/0093705 Al
Bohm et al. US 8,112,942 B2
Osterhout et al. US 2012/0075168 Al
July 2, 1991
Feb. 6, 2001
Apr. 9, 2009
Feb. 14, 2012
Mar. 29, 2012
Aug. 13,2013
Jan. 22, 2013
Karmarkar US 8,509,876 B2
Nakamura et al. US 8,358, 734 B2
Claims 1, 3, 6, 16, 18—21, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Vangdal, Osterhout, Coffin IV, and
Nakamura. Ans. 2—14.
Claims 13, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vangdal, Osterhout, Coffin IV, Nakamura, and
Karmarkar. Ans. 14—15.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Vangdal, Osterhout, Coffin IV, Nakamura, and Bohm. Ans. 15—16.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vangdal, Osterhout, Coffin IV, Nakamura, and
Nakabayashi. Ans. 16—18.
THE REJECTION OVER VANGDAL, OSTERHOUT, COFFIN IV, AND
NAKAMURA
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 20 as unpatentable over
Vangdal, Osterhout, Coffin IV, and Nakamura, the Examiner finds that
Vangdal teaches the recited magnetic-field generating device but lacks an
3
Appeal 2017-003885
Application 13/336,533
electronic display located at the magnetic-field generating device and
configured to display predetermined information. Ans. 4, 9-10. Concluding
that the claims would have been obvious, the Examiner finds Osterhout
teaches electronic paper located at a magnetic-field generating device and
configured to display predetermined information. Id. at 4, 10. The
Examiner proposes replacing Vangdal’s LCD display with Osterhout’s
electronic-paper display to allow the doctor to communicate with the patient
during a MRI. See id.
Appellants argue the cited art fails to teach an electronic display
coupled to the accommodation space displaying information in the manner
recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 6—7. According to Appellants,
Osterhout teaches an eyepiece with an image source above the lens. Id.
Appellants contend, although Osterhout’s eyepiece may access MRI scans,
the Examiner has not shown it would have been obvious to combine
Osterhout’s eyepiece and Vangdal’s MRI. See id. at 7—8. We agree that the
combination does not teach the recited display.
We see no support for the Examiner’s characterization of Osterhout’s
system as “electronic paper.” Ans. 4, 10. For example, an electronic-paper
display can be as thin as paper and bent to conform to a surface. Spec. 132.
Appellants use electronic paper to display images in the narrow space of an
MRI’s bore. Id. 136. But the cited teachings from Osterhout relate to an
eyepiece. See Ans. 4 (citing Osterhout || 5, 131, 351, Figs. 24A, 82); see
also Ans. 22 (similarly rejecting claim 20).
4
Appeal 2017-003885
Application 13/336,533
Notably, the current versions of claims 1 and 20 do not require
electronic paper.3 Nevertheless, the Examiner’s reliance on Osterhout’s
teachings related to the eyepiece weigh against the conclusion that it would
have been obvious to modify Vangdal’s MRI machine with Osterhout’s
teachings to arrive at the claimed display. See Ans. 4, 10, 22.
In particular, we see no support for the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious to use Osterhout’s teachings “during an MRI.” Id.
(emphasis added). Rather, the cited teachings relate to a post-scan
consultation. See id. For instance, Osterhout’s eyepiece can be worn as
eyeglasses. See, e.g., Osterhout, Fig. 22A. The eyepiece can “render the
projection of a previously taken medical scan onto the wearer’s body.”
Id. 1351 (emphasis added), cited in Ans. 4, 22. Through this eyepiece,
Osterhout’s patient views a completed MRI while the doctor explains the
physical ailment. Osterhout 1351.
Unlike Osterhout’s post-scan consultation {id.), Vangdal’s system
provides images to patients undergoing diagnostic treatment. Vangdal 11.
Given this difference, the Examiner has not explained, adequately, how or
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these teachings.
See Ans. 4, 10, 22. Moreover, because Osterhout’s eyepiece requires that
the user look through the eyepiece at their hand (Osterhout 1351), it is not
apparent how these eyepiece-based projections can be used by a patient
positioned inside the narrow bore of an MRI. See, e.g., Vangdal, Fig. 1.
3 Appellants amended the claim to replace the term “electronic paper” with
“electronic display.” See Amendment and Response filed Sept. 18, 2015.
5
Appeal 2017-003885
Application 13/336,533
On this record, we agree that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to modify Vangdal’s MRI machine with
Osterhout’s teachings to arrive at the claimed display. App. Br. 7—8.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 20, and dependent claims 3,6, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 26 for
similar reasons.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 25 depend from independent claims 1
and 20. The Examiner does not rely upon Karmarkar, Bohm, or
Nakabayashi for the feature missing from Vangdal. See Ans. 14—18.
Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 25 for the reasons discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 13, and 15—26.
REVERSED
6