Ex Parte Van Meel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2017

14421721 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 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.
14/421,721 02/13/2015 Marius Johannes Van Meet 2012P01082WOUS 3441
24737 7590 10/24/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue LE, MICHAEL
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2017 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):
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 MARIUS JOHANNES VAN MEEL
Appeal 2017-005913
Application 14/421,721
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—20, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-005913
Application 14/421,721
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “relates generally to
medical imaging” and “finds particular application in conjunction with
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).” Spec. 1:1—2.2 The Specification
explains that (1) a “magic angle” effect “will sometimes increase or decrease
the intensity of tissues without regard to the state of disease or damage” and
(2) the “magic angle” effect “occurs at a precisely defined angle between the
Bo field” and tissue orientation, i.e., “approximately 54.7°.” Id. at 1:10—16.
The Specification further explains that an “angle indicator module” in an
MRI system adds a visual indicator to an MRI image, and the visual
indicator depicts the “magic angle” orientation relative to the static magnetic
Bo field producing the MRI image. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. A magnetic resonance imaging system, comprising:
an angle indicator module which adds at least one visual
indicator to an image depicting a magic angle orientation
relative to a static magnetic Bo field in the image, the image
being reconstructed from magnetic resonance data received in
the Bo field; and
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed February 13, 2015; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed May 26, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
October 10, 2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 30,
2016; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed February 22, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-005913
Application 14/421,721
a display device which displays the image with the visual
indicator.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Wang et al. (“Wang”) US 2011/0044524 A1 Feb. 24, 2011
Batman et al. (“Batman”) US 2011/0228995 Al Sept. 22, 2011
Wilfred C.G. Peh & Jimmy H.M. Chan, Artifacts in Musculoskeletal
Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Identification and Correction,
30 Skeletal Radiology 179-191 (2001) (“Peh”)
K.M. Mountain et al., Visualization of Collagen Crimp in Tendon Using
High-Field MRI, 16 Proc. Int’l Soc’y Magnetic Resonance in
Medicine 2541 (2008) (“Mountain”)
Meredith A. Smith et al., Is a Magic Angle Effect Observed in the
Collateral Ligaments of the Distal Interphalangeal Joint or the Oblique
Sesamoidean Ligaments During Standing Magnetic Resonance Imaging?,
49 Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 509-515 (2008) (“Smith”)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1,2, 4—8, 11, 13—15 and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Peh and Wang. Final Act. 7—25.
Claims 3, 12, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Peh, Wang, and Batman. Final Act. 25—28.
Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Peh, Wang, and Smith. Final Act. 28—29.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Peh, Wang, Smith, and Mountain. Final Act. 29—31.
3
Appeal 2017-005913
Application 14/421,721
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—20 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before
us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of the
references teach or suggest adding to a reconstructed MRI image a visual
indicator depicting a magic angle orientation relative to a static magnetic Bo
field in the image as required by independent claims 1,11, and 20.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4—8, 11, 13—15 and 18—20
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Peh and Wang do not teach or suggest “an angle indicator module which
adds at least one visual indicator to an image depicting a magic angle
orientation relative to a static magnetic Bo field in the image, the image
being reconstructed from magnetic resonance data received in the Bo field,”
as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 6—12; Reply Br. 4—5. In particular,
Appellant contends that Peh Figure 19A “shows an area of increased signal
intensity,” and Peh Figure 19B “appears to be the same image as in FIG.
19A, but with the lines provided (on the existing image) for the purpose of
showing that the area of increased signal intensity in FIG. 19A occurs at the
magic angle” approximately “55 degrees [relative] to the static magnetic
field.” App. Br. 7 ; see Reply Br. 5. In addition, Appellant contends that
“[t]he lines in FIG. 19B appear to have been added to an already displayed
image, apparently manually,” to “pass through an artifact already identified
in the displayed image and show a 55 degree angle from the static magnetic
field.” App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5.
4
Appeal 2017-005913
Application 14/421,721
Further, Appellant argues that in Wang “[t]he pre-processing module
1307 (assertedly teaching the ‘angle indicator module’) pre-processes image
data itself, as opposed to an indicator to be displayed with the image.” App.
Br. 9—10; see Reply Br. 7—8. Appellant asserts that “the pre-processing
module 1307 may remove artifacts and undesired signal components from
image data,” but “this does not teach or suggest adding a visual indicator to
an image, depicting a magic angle orientation relative to a static magnetic Bo
field in the image or otherwise.” App. Br. 10; see Reply Br. 7—8. Appellant
also asserts that module 1307’s artifact-removal function and the Examiner’s
proposed magic-angle-indicator-addition function “are mutually exclusive
with respect to” module 1307. Reply Br. 8.
The Examiner relies on Peh for teaching or suggesting adding to a
reconstructed MRI image a visual indicator depicting a magic angle
orientation relative to a static magnetic Bo field in the image. See Final
Act. 3, 8—9; Ans. 2-4, 31—32. The Examiner finds that Peh Figure 19A
“shows an area of increased signal intensity” and “the area of increased
signal intensity exists along the magic angle.” Ans. 31. The Examiner
explains that “[i]t is this area of increased signal intensity that is identified in
determining the placement of the magic angle line” in Peh Figure 19B. Id.
In response, Appellant asserts that “the Examiner’s Answer appears to
acknowledge that the image [in Peh Figures 19A and 19B] is displayed
first,” and then a “visual indicator is provided based on the appearance of the
image (e.g., an area of increased intensity).” Reply Br. 5.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Peh teach
or suggest adding to a reconstructed MRI image a visual indicator depicting
5
Appeal 2017-005913
Application 14/421,721
a magic angle orientation relative to a static magnetic Bo field in the image.
In Figure 19B, the line at 55 degrees relative to the static magnetic Bo field
was provided to depict an area of increased signal intensity in Figures 19A
and 19B rather than “a magic angle orientation relative to a static magnetic
Bo field in the image” as required by claim 1. Peh 188 Figs. 19A—19B.
Hence, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 based on Peh and
Wang.
Like claim 1, independent claims 11 and 20 require a reconstructed
MRI image with an added visual indicator depicting a magic angle
orientation relative to a static magnetic Bo field in the image, e.g., “an angle
of arccos (1 / a/3) relative to the Bo field.” App. Br. 18—20 (Claims App.);
see Spec. 1:19—20. For the reasons discussed regarding claim 1, we do not
sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 11 and 20 based on Peh and Wang.
Claims 2 and 4—8 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, while
claims 13—15, 18, and 19 depend directly or indirectly from claim 11. For
the reasons discussed regarding the independent claims, we do not sustain
the § 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims based on Peh and Wang.
The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 3, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17
Claims 3, 9, and 10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, while
claims 12, 16, and 17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 11. Based on
the record before us, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited
secondary references—Batman, Smith, and Mountain—overcome the
deficiency discussed above for claims 1 and 11. Consequently, we do not
sustain the § 103(a) rejections of claims 3, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17.
Because these determinations resolve the appeal with respect to
claims 1—20, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments regarding
6
Appeal 2017-005913
Application 14/421,721
Examiner error. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a
decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
7