Ex Parte Swaminathan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2017

12160894 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 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.
12/160,894 07/15/2008 Srirama V. Swaminathan 2006P00027WOUS 6128
38107 7590 04/26/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2017 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):
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 SRIRAMA V. SWAMINATHAN
Appeal 2015-001057
Application 12/160,894
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Srirama V. Swaminathan (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5—12, 21—23, and
26—28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-001057
Application 12/160,894
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 5, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
5. A breast imaging method comprising:
acquiring magnetic resonance data of one or both breasts
of a subject using a dual breast coil coupled with said one or both
breasts, the acquiring employing at least four independent
channels per breast, the dual breast coil including at least four
independent acquisition channels per breast wherein the at least
four independent acquisition channels for each breast include
acquisition channels defined by (i) at least one conductor
positioned anterior of the breast, (ii) at least one conductor
positioned posterior of the breast, (iii) at least one conductor
positioned above the breast, (iv) at least one conductor positioned
below the breast, (v) at least one conductor positioned lateral of
the breast, and (vi) at least one conductor positioned medial of
the breast, wherein at least one of the four independent
acquis[ijtion channels is defined by an electrical or inductive
coupling between two of the conductors; and
processing the acquired magnetic resonance data to
generate elasticity data.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 5 and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hoppel (US 2005/0245805 Al, pub. Nov. 3,
2005), Qu (US 2005/0104591 Al, pub. May 19, 2005), and
Meaney (US 2006/0012367 Al, pub. Jan. 19, 2006).
II. Claims 6, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hoppel, Qu, Meaney, and Edelman
(US 2003/0135106 Al, pub. July 17, 2003).
2
Appeal 2015-001057
Application 12/160,894
III. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hoppel, Qu, Meaney, Edelman, and Ma (US 2006/0094952
Al, pub. May 4, 2006).
IV. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hoppel, Qu, Meaney, Edelman, and Van Zijl
(US 6,943,033 B2, iss. Sept. 13. 2005).
V. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hoppel, Qu, Meaney,2 Edelman, and deCharms
(US 2002/0103428 Al, pub. Aug. 1, 2002).
VI. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hoppel, Qu, Meaney, Edelman, and Wedeen
(US 2002/0042569 Al, pub. Apr. 11, 2002).
VII. Claims 26—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hoppel, Qu, Meaney, and Lee
(US 2004/0073106 Al, pub. Apr. 15, 2004).
DISCUSSION
Each of Appellant’s independent claims 5 and 22 requires at least four
independent channels per breast for acquiring magnetic resonance data,
wherein the at least four independent channels include at least one anterior
conductor, at least one posterior conductor, at least one superior conductor,
at least one inferior conductor, at least one lateral conductor, and at least one
2 Although the Examiner omits Meaney in the statement of this rejection, the
rejection refers to the combination “as applied to claim 8 above.” Final Act.
8; Ans. 7. As the combination applied to claim 8 includes Meaney, and
claim 10 depends from claim 8, we understand the combination applied in
the rejection of claim 10 to include Meaney.
3
Appeal 2015-001057
Application 12/160,894
medial conductor,3 “wherein at least one of the four independent channels is
defined by an electrical or inductive coupling between two of the
conductors.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.); see id. at 11 (Claims App.).
The Examiner explains that claims 5 and 22 recite broadly only “an
‘electrical coupling’ and [do] not require a specific configuration in which
the electrical coupling between two of the conductors occurs.” Ans. 10.
Thus, the Examiner’s position is that, because “Hoppel. . . disclose[s]
‘connected to first and second coils 212, 214 is a signal wire 330 with a
connector 340 and an end thereof for providing signal communication to and
from first and second coils 212, 214, and a control station,”’ and “[t]he
signal wire is depicted as a single wire in [FJigure 2” of Hoppel, an electrical
signal must be provided through signal wire 330 “as well as through the
coils in order to provide signal communication.” Id. (quoting Hoppel, para.
21). The Examiner then emphasizes that claims 5 and 22 do not require that
“the coils be ‘directly’ electrically coupled.” Id. According to the
Examiner, in Hoppel, “the coils are . . . electrically coupled through the
connection of the coils to the control station via the signal cable.” Id. The
Examiner explains further that Qu “was relied upon to more explicitly
disclose the electrical coupling, specifically Qu . . . discloses an electrical
arrangement of the coil elements within a signal MRI array coil system.” Id.
at 10-11 (citing Qu, para. 39).
In the Final Action, the Examiner conceded that “Hoppel. . . fails to
disclose electrical coupling of two of the conductors,” but found that Qu
3 The modifiers “anterior,” “posterior,” “superior,” “inferior,” “lateral,” and
“medial” denote the positioning of the conductors relative to the breast(s) to
be imaged.
4
Appeal 2015-001057
Application 12/160,894
teaches “in the same medical field of endeavor, an electrical arrangement
between two conductors.” Final Act. 9 (citing Qu, para. 39). The Examiner
then determined it would have been obvious “to modify the conductors
creating a channel of Hoppel. . . with electrical coupling of two conductors
to provide data acquisition from the coils.” Id.
Appellant contends that “Hoppel at no point teaches that at least one
of the four acquisition channels ‘is defined by an electrical or inductive
coupling between two of the conductors,’” as recited in independent claims 5
and 22. Appeal Br. 4; see id. at 6. Appellant also submits that “there is no
teaching or suggestion in the entirety of Qu of a coupling of conductors,”
and, “[therefore, Qu does not cure the deficiencies of Hoppel.” Id. at 5, 6.
Appellant adds that the Examiner’s statement referencing Qu’s disclosure of
“an electrical arrangement between two conductors” constitutes an
acknowledgement “that there is no teaching in Qu of electrical or inductive
coupling, but rather just the vague concept of an electrical arrangement.” Id.
at 5—6.
The Examiner’s statement that claims 5 and 22 recite broadly only an
electrical coupling between two of the conductors, without reciting a specific
configuration in which that electrical coupling occurs (Ans. 10), is an
oversimplification of the “electrical or inductive coupling” limitation in the
claims. More specifically, claims 5 and 22 require two of the conductors to
be electrically or inductively coupled in a manner to define an acquisition
channel.
Hoppel’s signal wire 330 and connector 340 connect coils 212 and
214 to the control station for providing signal communication between coils
212 and 214 and the control station. Hoppel, paras. 21, 24. As such, coils
5
Appeal 2015-001057
Application 12/160,894
212 and 214 might be considered broadly to be electrically coupled to one
another, indirectly, via the control station. However, Hoppel gives no
indication that coils 212 and 214 are coupled to one another as specified in
the claim, namely, to define an acquisition channel for acquiring magnetic
resonance data. In fact, to the contrary, Hoppel describes each of coils 212,
214, 222, and 224 as being a separate channel in “a four-channel breast coil
assembly.” Id., para. 27; see Fig. 5. Hoppel expressly discloses winding
inductors 270 of coils 212 and 214, as well as inductors 270 of coils 222 and
224, “in opposite directions to cancel out mutual inductance between the
coils in the left/right direction” or using “other means for canceling out the
mutual inductance between the left/right coils.” Id., para. 28; Fig. 5.
Further, Hoppel discloses that first pair of coils 210 (i.e., coils 212 and 214)
and second pair of coils 220 (i.e., coils 222 and 224) “are decoupled by
means of distance 238,” as illustrated in Figure 1. Id., para. 30 (boldface
omitted). Moreover, Hoppel discloses that each coil is “configured to be
operational independent of each of’ the other coils. Id., para. 9; see also id.,
para. 24. Thus, Hoppel does not disclose, by a preponderance of the
evidence, a channel defined by an electrical or inductive coupling between
coils 212 and 214 (or between any other two coils), as called for in claims 5
and 22.
Qu does not make up for this deficiency in Hoppel. Qu’s description
of the “electrical arrangement of the coil elements” in paragraph 39 and
depiction of this arrangement in Figures 11 and 12 does not indicate a
coupling of any pairs of the coil elements (loop coils) to define an
acquisition channel. In the Advisory Action, dated March 14, 2014, the
Examiner referred to Qu’s disclosure of “a distinct circuitry arrangement of
6
Appeal 2015-001057
Application 12/160,894
a right wing of coils (22 and 23) and a separate circuitry arrangement of a
left wing of coils (28 and 29).” Adv. Act. 2 (citing Qu, para. 47). Figures
11 and 12 (discussed by Qu in paragraph 39) and Figures 23 and 24
(discussed by Qu in paragraph 47) appear to depict coils 22 and 23
overlapping with, or crossing over, one another, and coils 28 and 29
overlapping with, or crossing over, one another. However, paragraphs 39
and 47 cited by the Examiner give no indication that coils 22 and 23 or coils
28 and 29 are coupled electrically or inductively to form an acquisition
channel, nor does the Examiner direct our attention to any other portion of
Qu providing such a teaching. Thus, the Examiner’s rationale for modifying
the conductors creating a channel of Hoppel by providing an electrical
coupling of two of the conductors to provide data acquisition from the coils
(Final Act. 10) is predicated on unsupported findings regarding the teachings
of Qu.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, either that Hoppel discloses at least one of
the independent channels being defined by an electrical or inductive
coupling between two of the conductors, as required in independent claims 5
and 22, or that Qu provides any teaching that would make up for this
deficiency in Hoppel. Further, the Examiner does not rely on any of the
remaining references (Meaney, Edelman, Ma, Van Zijl, deCharms, Wedeen,
or Lee) for any teaching directed to such a coupling. Ans. 4—9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 5 and
22, or their dependent claims 6—12, 21, 23, and 26—28, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
7
Appeal 2015-001057
Application 12/160,894
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5—12, 21—23, and 26—28 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
8