Ex Parte Ullrich

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

12427856 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/427,856 0412212009
34300 7590 06/28/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP
1001 W Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher J. Ullrich
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.
IMD306 7753
EXAMINER
ZAMAN, SADARUZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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):
deej ones@kilpatricktownsend.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. ULLRICH
Appeal2014-006155 1
Application 12/427 ,8562
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Aug. 27,
2013), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Apr. 25, 2014), Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed Feb. 28, 2014), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed
Feb. 14, 2013).
2 Appellant identifies Immersion Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006155
Application 12/427,856
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates to "systems and methods for
medical simulation and training." Spec. i-f 4.
Claims 1, 11, and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system for surgical simulation, comprising:
a subject body having an outer surface and defining at least
one cavity;
a capture mechanism configured to receive an instrument,
the capture mechanism mounted to a robotic positioning
assembly within the cavity, the robotic positioning assembly
comprising an articulated arm;
a sensor configured to determine the position of at least
one instrument;
an interface configured to allow a trainer to control one or
more parameters of the simulation; and
a processor configured to receive data from the interface
and receive data from the sensor indicating the position of the at
least one instrument relative to the cavity in the subject body and
provide a command to the robotic positioning assembly to adjust
the position of the capture mechanism.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cunningham (US 2001/0016804 Al, pub. Aug. 23, 2001),
Eggert (US 2008/0131855 Al, pub. June 5, 2008), and Feygin
(US 2005/0214726 Al, Sept. 29, 2005). 3
3 We treat the omission of claims 2--4 in the statement of rejection at page 3
of the Final Action as inadvertent error given their treatment at page 5 of the
Final Action. Additionally, Appellant recognizes that the rejection includes
claims 2--4. Appeal Br. 12 (identifying the rejection as applying to
claims 1-5 and 7-20).
2
Appeal2014-006155
Application 12/427,856
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cunningham, Eggert, Feygin, and Toly (US 8,007,281 B2, iss. Aug. 30,
2011).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 17 and Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-16,
and 18-20
Appellant argues claims 1-5 and 7-20 as a group. See Appeal Br. 12-
15. We select claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Feygin does not
disclose or suggest "a robotic positioning assembly within the cavity, the
robotic positioning assembly comprising an articulated arm," as recited in
claim 1. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Feygin discloses the
argued limitation. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Feygin i1i112, 97-111; Figs. lOA-
lOC, 1 lA, 1 lB), 12-13 (citing Feygin i-fiT 12, 19; Fig. 6).
Feygin relates to systems that simulate medical procedures for the
purposes of training or accreditation. Feygin iT 2. The system provides a
realistic simulation of the resistive forces that a medical practitioner would
experience if the simulated procedure were an actual procedure that was
being performed on a real anatomy (e.g., human arm). Id. iT 12. An end
effector (e.g., medical instrument, such as a needle-catheter module) is used
to simulate a medical procedure, such as a vascular access procedure. Id.
iTiT 12, 14, 25. A needle-stick module receives the end effector. Id. iT 14.
Figures lOA-lOC and 1 lA-1 lD of Feygin show the receiving
module. Id. iTiT 31, 32. As shown in the figures, moveable member 972
3
Appeal2014-006155
Application 12/427,856
moves within receiving module 107 6, providing movement along
translational axis 1-1, secondary gimbal bracket 1083 provides rotation
about pitch axis 2-2, and primary gimbal bracket 1088 provides rotation
about yaw axis 3-3. Id. i-f 99. The needle-stick module thus provides three
degree of freedom. Id.
Appellant argues that none of Figures lOA-lOC, 1 lA, and 1 lB or
paragraphs 12 and 97-111 of Feygin teach a robotic positioning assembly
because Feygin "states that is not related to the field of robotics." Appeal
Br. 12. Appellant charges that "the only paragraph of Feygin that mentions
a robot arm" is in the following quoted paragraph:
"End Effector" means a device, tool or instrument for
performing a task. The structure of an end effector depends on
the intended task. For example, in the illustrative embodiment,
the end effector is intended to be used to simulate a vascular
access procedure, and is therefore implemented as a catheter-
needle module. Those skilled in the art will recognize that term
"end effector" is borrowed from robotics, where it has a
somewhat different definition: a device or tool connected to the
end of a robot arm.
Id. at 13 (quoting Feygin i-f 34 [sic, i-f 35]) (emphasis added by Appellant).
Appellant interprets the quoted language as an explicit disavowal of
robotics, asserting that Feygin neither discloses a robot arm nor relates to
robotics. Id. at 13-14. But we interpret the statement as an indication that
the art is related to the field of medical simulation systems, i.e., the same
field as Appellant's invention. Moreover, although Feygin does not use the
term "robotic," the application of references to a claim is not an ipsissimis
verb is test, i.e., identical terminology is not required. See In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
4
Appeal2014-006155
Application 12/427,856
Appellant argues with reference to Figure 6 of Feygin that
element 652 in Figure 6 is a wire, "not an articulated arm." Appeal Br. 14;
see also Reply Br. 2. However, the Examiner cites element 652 in the
responsive remarks section of the Final Office Action to explain that
Feygin's articulated arm has a wired connection, not to find that the wire
itself is an articulated arm. See Final Act. 13.
Appellant provides no other argument or technical analysis in the
Appeal Brief explaining how the claimed articulated arm distinguishes over
F eygin' s needle-stick module.
Responding to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner finds that the
ordinary meaning for "articulated arm" is "a mechanical member having two
or more sections connected by a flexible joint." Ans. 3 (citing an
unidentified dictionary definition). The Examiner reasons that a mechanical
member with several connected sections, as shown by Feygin at Figure lOA,
meets the claimed articulated arm. Id.
In the Reply Brief Appellant argues for the first time that
paragraph 55 of Appellant's Specification distinguishes the claimed
articulated arm from a gimbal mechanism. Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec. i-f 55).
Appellant also asserts that the Examiner does not provide a citation for the
relied on dictionary definition. Thus, Appellant ostensibly maintains that the
claimed articulated arm is precluded from including a gimble mechanism.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive. Nothing in the claim
language recites a particular structure for the articulated arm or otherwise
precludes an articulated arm from including a gimble. Nor do we find the
term "articulated arm" defined in Appellant's Specification. Although claim
language is properly construed in light of the specification, limitations from
5
Appeal2014-006155
Application 12/427,856
the specification are not to be read into the claims. See, e.g., Jn re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, we agree with the
Examiner that a proper construction of "articulated arm" in light of the
Specification includes "a mechanical member having two or more sections
connected by a flexible joint," and is met by Feygin's needle-stick module. 4
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-5
and 7-20, which fall with claim 1.
Dependent Claim 6
Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the
patentability of dependent claim 6 except to assert that Toly does not cure
the alleged deficiency of Cunningham, Eggert, and Feygin with respect to
claim 1. Appeal Br. 15.
We are not persuaded, for the reasons outlined above, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim l under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are affirmed.
4 The term "articulated" is generally understood to mean "connected by a
joint." See, e.g., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/articulated
(last visited on June 22, 2016).
6
Appeal2014-006155
Application 12/427,856
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7