Ex Parte Svanerudh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2013

10935720 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)

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.
10/935,720 09/08/2004 Johan Svanerudh 030481-0228 5658
22428 7590 11/12/2013
FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
SUITE 500
3000 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
EXAMINER
TOWA, RENE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3736
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2013 PAPERPAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JOHAN SVANERUDH

________________

Appeal 2011-009828
Application 10/935,720
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009828
Application 10/935,720

2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 6-8, and 10-15 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of
Svanerudh et al. (US 6,565,514 B2, May 20, 2003) (“Svanerudh”), Corl et
al. (US 5,715,827, February 10, 1998) (“Corl”) and Langenhove et al. (US
2004/0006277 A1, January 8, 2004) (“Langenhove”). App. Br. 6.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a pressure measurement system,
comprising a pressure detection device comprising a pressure sensor
guidewire provided with a pressure sensor connected to an electrical carrier
for transmitting pressure data from the sensor to a processing means. The
guidewire is adapted to be inserted into a vessel of a subject, and an image
data capturing device for capturing image data representative of the vessel.
The processing means comprises a computer program product which
comprises computer executable instructions for manipulating image data and
pressure data to generate an output in which the pressure data is mapped
onto a corresponding position on an image where that pressure data was
detected to provide an integrated graphical image output on monitoring
means. Abstract.

Appeal 2011-009828
Application 10/935,720

3
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Because Appellant advances the same argument for claims 1, 6-8, and
10-15, we select claim 1 as representative of this group. App. Br. 6. Claim
1 recites:
1. A pressure measurement system, comprising:

a pressure detection device that comprises a pressure
sensor guidewire provided with a pressure sensor connected to
an electrical carrier configured to transmit pressure data from
the sensor, wherein said guidewire is adapted to be inserted into
a vessel of a subject,

a processing device, wherein the pressure sensor and the
electrical carrier are configured to transmit the pressure data
from the sensor to the processing device, and an image data
capturing device configured to capture image data
representative of the vessel,

wherein the processing device comprises a computer
readable medium having program code recorded therein, that,
when executed on the processing device, causes the processing
device to perform steps comprising: manipulation of the image
data and the pressure data to generate an output,

wherein the output comprises a Fractional Flow Reserve
(FFR) value, calculated from the pressure data, which is
mapped onto a corresponding position on an image where
corresponding data was detected to provide an integrated
graphical image output on a monitoring device,

wherein the pressure data is data from the pressure
detection device and the FFR value represents the functional
significance of a stenosis inside the vessel and the image data is
representative of the vessel,

wherein the FFR value is displayed along the vessel in
the image output,
Appeal 2011-009828
Application 10/935,720

4

wherein the pressure detection device is configured to be
drawn continuously along at least a section of the vessel under
examination as pressure data is recorded,

wherein the pressure detection device is configured to be
drawn by an external pullback device,

wherein the pressure detection device is configured such
that a speed of the external pull-back device is adjusted such
that a pull-back procedure lasts for approximately 10-20
seconds,

wherein the pressure detection device is configured such
that individual pressure measurements are taken along a
predetermined length of the vessel and related to a reference
pressure value sensed proximally to a measurement site of the
vessel.

App. Br. 13-14.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in concluding that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Svanerudh, Corl, and Langenhove to arrive at Appellant’s
claimed invention. App. Br. 8. We therefore address the issue of whether
the Examiner so erred.

ANALYSIS
Appellant admits that Svanerudh teaches measuring and calculating
physiological variables, such as arterial pressure and distal coronary pressure
for FFR values, however, argues Appellant, Svanerudh discloses only
graphing this data. App. Br. 7 (citing Svanerudh, col. 2, ll. 1-9; cols. 4-5, ll.
Appeal 2011-009828
Application 10/935,720

5
65-5; col. 7, ll. 19-24). Appellant also argues that although Corl teaches a
pressure sensor and guide wire, Corl is silent regarding mapping FFR values
according to a corresponding position in an image, as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 7. Appellant further contends that, although Langenhove discloses
a method in which temperature data from within a vessel is mapped to a
corresponding position on an image of the vessel, Langenhove does not
disclose or suggest that FFR values are calculated and mapped according to
a corresponding position. Id. (citing Langenhove, ¶¶ [0012]-[0038]; [0101]-
[0106]). According to Appellant, Langenhove teaches only the collection
and mapping of temperature data, and not the mapping of pressure data.
App. Br. 7.
Appellant adduces the declaration of Dr. Urban Lönn (the “Lönn
Declaration”), who opines that pressure data and temperature data provide
different information about the characteristics of a blood vessel and that
these data are not interchangeable. App. Br. 8 (citing Lönn Decl., ¶ 5).
According to Dr. Lönn, examining the blood vessel to locate inflamed tissue
as an indication of abnormalities entails measuring a temperature at a single
point of the tissue (viz., the vessel wall), whereas locating a significant
stenosis entails measuring the pressure at two different points of the
intravessel fluid and calculating the pressure ratio for the length of the blood
vessel between the two points. Id. Therefore, opines Dr. Lönn, the two
types of measurement are not interchangeable. Id.
Consequently, argues Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have looked to the teachings and suggestions of Langenhove when
considering a modification to the devices of Svanerudh and Corl because of
Appeal 2011-009828
Application 10/935,720

6
the differences between temperature and pressure data and because of the
different uses for these types of data. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner responds that the rejection of claim 1 is based upon
applying a known technique (as taught by Langenhove) to a known device
(as taught by Svanerudh) to yield predictable results. Ans. 13. The
Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that applying the technique of Langenhove to the device of Svanerudh, as
modified by Corl, would have yielded predictable results viz., the
physiological variable would be mapped integrally onto a corresponding
position on an image in order to make it possible for a physician to correctly
recognize an area of interest while visualizing the physiological variable
distribution in the blood vessel. Ans. 15. Furthermore, finds the Examiner,
one of ordinary skill in the art who was motivated to improve the detection
of some “characteristics of a blood vessel,” would at least consider looking
for a system that uses either pressure or temperature data since both data
types “provide … information about the characteristics of a blood vessel”
despite the fact that such data conveys different meanings. Ans. 12.
The Examiner finds further that Appellant’s argument that that FFR,
as taught by Svanerudh and Corl, characterizes a section of a blood vessel,
as opposed to Langenhove’s alleged teaching of measuring a single point in
a blood vessel, improperly characterizes the teachings of Langenhove. Ans.
16. The Examiner finds that Langenhove teaches that a mean or average
temperature value may be used to characterize a length of a blood vessel via
comparison to a reference temperature. Ans. 16 (citing Langenhove,
¶ [0093]). Consequently, the Examiner finds Langenhove teaches or
suggests using a physiological parameter to characterize either a single point
Appeal 2011-009828
Application 10/935,720

7
or a length of a blood vessel and concludes that a person of ordinary skill
would find it obvious to combine the references. Ans. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Even if we accept
Dr. Lönn’s assertion that temperature and pressure data are qualitatively
different and convey substantially different information, the limitation of
claim 1 at issue recites “wherein the output comprises a Fractional Flow
Reserve (FFR) value, calculated from the pressure data, which is mapped
onto a corresponding position on an image where corresponding data was
detected to provide an integrated graphical image output on a monitoring
device.” Appellant admits that the cited prior art references teach or suggest
the calculation of the FFR value. App. Br. 7. What therefore remains to be
disputed of the limitation is whether Langenhove’s teachings can be
properly combined with the references to show that data, calculated along a
length of blood vessel, “is mapped onto a corresponding position on an
image … to provide an integrated graphical image output.”
Langenhove teaches:
[I]ntroducing the temperature detection device into a blood
vessel, determining a reference temperature value, measuring at
least one first temperature value at the inner vascular wall,
determining the difference between the first temperature value
and the reference temperature value, and where the difference is
above zero but not more than 0.39°C, diagnosing the presence of
inflamed atherosclerotic plaque in the blood vessel.

Langenhove [0014]-[0018] (emphasis added). Langenhove further teaches:
In a preferred aspect there is also used in the invention a
computer program product which comprises computer
executable instructions for manipulating image data and
temperature data to generate an output in which the temperature
data is mapped onto a corresponding position on an image
Appeal 2011-009828
Application 10/935,720

8
where that temperature data was detected to provide an
integrated graphical image output, wherein the temperature data
is thermography data that represents surface temperature at a
vascular wall, and the image data is representative of the
vascular wall morphology

Langenhove, ¶ [0101] (emphasis added). We consequently agree with the
Examiner that Langenhove teaches measuring data along a length of vessel
and comparing the data with a reference value, as a means of characterizing
a property of the vessel. We further find that Langenhove teaches
subsequently mapping that data onto a corresponding position on an image
where the data was detected to provide an integrated graphical image output.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
Svanerudh and Corl with the teachings of Langenhove to arrive at the
disputed limitation in which the FFR data, calculated from the pressure data,
“is mapped onto a corresponding position on an image where corresponding
data was detected to provide an integrated graphical image output on a
monitoring device.” We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Claims 6-8 and 10-15 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6-8, and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.

Appeal 2011-009828
Application 10/935,720

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc