Ex Parte Zeijlemaker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 22, 2012

10673778 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte VOLKERT A. ZEIJLEMAKER
__________

Appeal 2011-008655
Application 10/673,778
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method of coordinating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with operation
of an implantable medical device (IMD), an IMD device, and systems
comprising a MRI device and an IMD device. The Patent Examiner rejected
the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

Appeal 2011-008655
Application 10/673,778

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification states:
In general, the invention is directed to techniques for
coordinating the operation of an IMD with MRI techniques. By
coordinating the performance of MRI techniques with defined
operation of the IMD, the use of the MRI techniques on a
patient that has an IMD can be facilitated. In particular, the
timing of electromagnetic radiation bursts emitted by an MRI
device can be communicated to the IMD. The IMD can
respond to the timing information by activating a “blanking
period” during the time when the electromagnetic radiation
bursts occur. A blanking period refers to a period during which
one or more sensing components of the IMD, such as sensing
amplifiers, are disabled within the IMD sensing circuitry.

(Spec. [0006].)
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 15, 17-21, 23-33 and 39-45 are on appeal.
Independent claims 1, 11, 23, and 31 are representative and read as follows:
1. A method of coordinating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with
operation of an implantable medical device (IMD), comprising:
receiving, via wireless telemetry, a control signal prior to delivery of
an electromagnetic radiation burst to a patient in whom the IMD is
implanted; and
responsive to receipt of the control signal by the IMD, blanking one or
more components of the IMD for a time period including at least the
delivery of the electromagnetic radiation burst to the patient.

11. An implantable medical device (IMD) comprising:
a receiver to receive, via wireless telemetry, a control signal produced
by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system prior to application of an
MRI electromagnetic radiation burst; and
a control unit that in response to the control signal, blanks one or more
components the IMD for a time period including at least the application of
an MRI electromagnetic radiation burst delivered by the MRI system.

Appeal 2011-008655
Application 10/673,778

3
23. A system comprising:
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device including a transmitter to
transmit, via wireless telemetry, a control signal relating to application of an
MRI electromagnetic radiation burst from the MRI device prior to
application of the MRI electromagnetic radiation burst; and
an implantable medical device (IMD) including:
a receiver to receive, via wireless telemetry, the control signal
produced by the MRI system prior to application of an MRI
electromagnetic radiation burst; and
a control unit responsive to the control signal to blank one or
more components of the IMD for a time period including at least the
application of the MRI electromagnetic radiation burst.

31. A system comprising:
a programmer device defining timing for application of a magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) electromagnetic radiation burst and generating
first and second signals indicative thereof;
an MRI device responsive to the first signal and applying the
electromagnetic radiation burst according to the timing indicated by the first
signal; and
an implantable medical device (IMD) to receive the second signal
from the programmer and blank one or more components of the IMD for a
time period including at least the application of the MRI electromagnetic
radiation burst.

(App. Br. 36-41, Claims App‟x.)(emphasis added).

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 15, 17-21, 23-33 and 39-
45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Foster
1
and Weisner.
2

1
Patent No. US 6,925,328 B2 issued to Thomas H. Foster et al., Aug. 2,
2005.
2
Patent No. US 7,024,249 B2 issued to Ralph M. Weisner et al., Apr. 4,
2006.

Appeal 2011-008655
Application 10/673,778

4
OBVIOUSNESS
The Examiner‟s position is that Foster disclosed an IMD in
combination with an MRI, whereby some of the components of the IMD are
disabled during an MRI scanning session. (Ans. 3.) The Examiner found
that Foster‟s MRI sends out signals that are detected by the IMD and the
signals are then evaluated to determine whether or not to disable portions of
the IMD. (Id.) The Examiner found that Foster‟s Figure 5 shows circuitry
that includes a means for activating a trigger signal which causes the IMD to
be deactivated. (Id.) Additionally, the Examiner found that Foster disclosed
that the trigger signals precede triggering of the activation of the radio
frequency coils of the MRI scanner. (Id. at 4.) According to the Examiner,
“[a] signal received from the MRI system would inherently define
„blanking‟ of components of the MRI system.” (Id.)
The Examiner also found that Foster did not disclose using wireless
telemetry to send out control signals to the IMD, but found that the use of
wireless control signals was well known at the time of the invention, as
evidenced by Weisner. (Id.)
Appellant contends, among other things, that Foster‟s “activation of
the trigger voltage is not a control signal received by the IMD prior to
delivery of an electromagnetic radiation burst to a patient in whom the IMD
is implanted and that causes blanking of one or more components of the
IMD responsive to receipt of the control signal.” (App. Br. 7.) According to
Appellant, even “[i]f the trigger voltage is considered to be the control signal
(as suggested by the Examiner), the IMD of Foster does not blank one or
more components of the IMD responsive to [the] receipt of the control
signal, as recited in Applicant‟s claim 1.” (Id.) According to Appellant,
Appeal 2011-008655
Application 10/673,778

5
“the parallel resonant circuit does not blank the circuitry until a signal at or
near the resonant frequency is received, i.e., responsive to the RF pulses of
the MRI” and not responsive to receipt of the control signal, i.e., the trigger
voltage. (Id. at 8.)
After considering all the evidence and arguments, we conclude that
the record does not support a conclusion of prima facie obviousness. In
particular, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established
that Foster‟s IMD receives a control signal and responds with a blanking of
one or more components of the IMD. According to the Examiner, “[t]he
circuitry of figure 5 includes means for activating a trigger signal. The
trigger signal causes the IMD to be deactivated.” (Ans. 3.) Figure 5 of
Foster is reproduced below:

Figure 5 is a schematic of a preferred process of the invention. (Foster col.
2, ll. 42-43.)
Foster disclosed that the timing circuitry 441 within the MRI
instrumentation hardware activates the gradient coils of the MRI scanner
while substantially simultaneously activating a trigger voltage (step 444).
(Id. at col. 9, ll. 12-17.) Foster explained that immediately thereafter, the
timing circuitry 441 also activates the transmission of radio frequency coil
Appeal 2011-008655
Application 10/673,778

6
pulses (see step 446). (Id. at col. 9, ll. 17-19.) Foster disclosed that the
trigger voltage 444 will be applied to a specified diode (see step 447),
thereby preferably forming a parallel-resonant circuit (step 448) that is
functional only when the resonant condition is met. (Id. at col. 10, ll. 15-
20.) Foster states,
When the parallel resonant circuit becomes functional (see step
448), it then prevents current at or near the resonant frequency
from passing through it. Thus, when this parallel-resonant
circuit is interconnected between a cardiac assist device circuit
and cardiac leads and is functional, it will effectively open the
circuitry of the cardiac assist device, totally inhibiting [the]
current induced by the radio frequency fields of the MRI
system from flowing to the device or via the leads to the heart
(see step 450).
(Id. at col. 10, ll. 29-38; see also id. at col. 12, ll. 56-62 (radio frequency
energy of specified frequency causes resonant circuit to block current)). In
other words, Foster suggests that “blanking” only occurs when the following
conditions are met: (1) trigger voltage is applied; (2) MRI energy is applied;
and (3) the resonant frequency of the parallel-resonant circuit is reached.
Thus, Foster does not teach or suggest that the activation of the trigger
voltage, i.e. the receipt of the control signal, alone causes blanking of one or
more components of the IMD, as required by the claim 1. The blanking of
the IMD components in Foster is not “responsive to receipt of the control
signal,” as required by claim 1. Consequently, we reverse the rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims 3-5 and 7-10.
Similarly, independent claims 11 and 23 both recite an IMD
comprising (a) a receiver to receive a control signal produced by a MRI
system prior to application of an MRI electromagnetic radiation burst, and
Appeal 2011-008655
Application 10/673,778

7
(b) a control unit that is responsive to the control signal to blank one or more
components of the IMD; and independent claim 31 recites an IMD to receive
the second signal from the programmer and blank one or more components
of the IMD. Therefore, we also reverse the rejection of independent claims
11, 23, 31, and their dependent claims because Foster did not teach or
suggest these limitations and the Examiner has not relied on Weisner to cure
this deficiency.

SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 15, 17-21, 23-33 and
39-45.

REVERSED

cdc