Ex Parte Zeijlemaker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

11379847 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111379,847 0412412006
27581 7590 06/27/2016
Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM)
710 MEDTRONIC PARKWAY NE
MS: LC340 Legal Patents
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432-9924
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Volkert A. Zeijlemaker
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.
POOl 1235.00/LG10126 1573
EXAMINER
PENG, BO JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3768
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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):
medtronic_crdm_docketing@cardinal-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
L11'-~ITED STATES PATENT AND TRADE~'v1ARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VOLKERT A. ZEIJLEMAKER
Appeal2014-002981
Application 11/379,847
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Volkert A. Zeijlemaker (Appellant)1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 32, 34-36,
43, 45, 47-52, and 54. Claims 2, 4, 8, 11-31, 33, 37-42, 44, 46, and 53
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Medtronic, Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-002981
Application 11/379,847
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's claimed subject matter relates to "detecting [implantable
medical devices] in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment."
Spec. para. 1. Claims 1 and 43 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system comprising:
an implanted medical device;
an implantable medical device detection unit comprising:
a receiver adapted to receive a telemetry
transmission from the implanted medical device;
a signal generator coupled to the receiver; and
a signaling element coupled to the signal generator,
wherein the signaling element includes a light,
wherein the signal generator is configured to send a
signal to the signaling element, responsive to receipt of the
telemetry transmission received from the implanted
medical device, to cause the light to illuminate to alert an
MRI system operator of the presence of the implanted
medical device; and
an MRI system separate from the implantable medical
device detection unit, wherein the MRI system is configured to
wirelessly communicate with the implantable medical device
detection unit.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Alt
Magnuson
Scarantino
Haubrich
us 6,073,049
US 6,194,898 Bl
US 6,402,689 B 1
US 6,482,154 Bl
2
June 6, 2000
Feb.27,2001
June 11, 2002
Nov. 19, 2002
Appeal2014-002981
Application 11/379,847
Riff
Zeijlemaker '975
Zeijlemaker '786
Weiner
Phillips
US 2002/0026223 A 1
US 2005/0070975 Al
US 2005/0070786 Al
US 2005/0113876 Al
US 2006/0025820 Al
REJECTIONS
Feb.28,2002
Mar. 31, 2005
Mar. 31, 2005
May 26, 2005
Feb.2,2006
Appellant appeals from the Final Action, dated March 15, 2013,
which contains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 5-7, 32, 34, 43, 45, 48, 49, and 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Phillips, Zeijlemaker '786,
Zeijlemaker '975, Riff, and Magnuson.
2. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Phillips,
Zeijlemaker '786, Zeijlemaker '975, Riff, Magnuson, and Alt.
3. Claims 10, 51, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Phillips, Zeijlemaker '786, Zeijlemaker '975, Riff, Magnuson,
and Haubrich.
4. Claims 3, 35, 47, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Phillips, Zeijlemaker '786, Zeijlemaker '975, Riff, Magnuson,
and Scarantino.
5. Claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Phillips,
Zeijlemaker '786, Zeijlemaker '975, Riff, Magnuson, and Weiner.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner found that Phillips
discloses an implantable medical device detection unit comprising a receiver
3
Appeal2014-002981
Application 11/379,847
adapted to receive a telemetry transmission from an implanted medical
device, and a signal generator coupled to the receiver. Final Act. 3 (citing
Phillips, Fig. 3, paras. 49-50). Appellant requested clarification as to which
element of Figure 3 corresponds to the claimed signal generator. Br. 5. In
response, the Examiner pointed to element 118 of implantable system 100
and element 130 of MRI system 104 as being signal generators. Ans. 15.
Paragraphs 49 and 50 and Figure 3 of Phillips describe and depict that
MRI sequence control system 130 or computer system 140 of MRI system
104 receives a signal via interface 131 over communications link 129 from
implantable system 100 indicating potential heating of part of the
implantable system or surrounding tissue in the patient's body. Phillips
discloses that MRI sequence control system 130 or computer system 140 can
terminate or modify aspects of the MRI sequence in response to the received
signal. Based on this disclosure, we understand it is ivIRI system 104 that
comprises a receiver 131 for receiving a telemetry transmission from
implanted system 100. As such, we understand the Examiner's finding to be
that MRI sequence control system 130 corresponds to the claimed "signal
generator."
The Examiner found that the medical device detection unit of Phillips
fails to include a signaling element, as called for in claim 1. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner found that Zeijlemaker '786 discloses a signaling element that
indicates to an operator via a visual indicator the presence of an implanted
medical device. Id. (citing Zeijlemaker '786, para. 46, element 48 of Fig. 2).
4
Appeal2014-002981
Application 11/379,847
Zeijlemaker '786 discloses coordinating sensing or stimulation pulses
from an implantable medical device (IMD) with application of MRI
radiation bursts and gradient fields for effective imaging. Zeijlemaker '786,
para. 6. Zeijlemaker '786 discloses that "[t]he IMD may communicate
sensing or stimulation information to the MRI device, or the MRI device (or
a programmer) may instruct the IMD to deliver particular stimulations
consistent with MRI techniques to be applied." Id., para. 22. Figure 2 of
Zeijlemaker '786 shows IMD 12 and MRI device 20. Id., para. 30. MRI
device 20 includes imaging unit 48, which "uses the detected energy given
off by the reorienting protons to create one or more images of the tissue or
matter of the patient ... to create medical images for display to physicians."
Id., para. 35. Zeijlemaker '786 discloses that "in addition to sensing or
stimulating a patient using an IMD for the purpose of improving MRI,
sensed events could also be displayed with an ivIRI image during the ivIRI
procedure." Id., para. 46.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art "to include the limitations, as taught by Zeijlemaker
'786, in the system and method of Phillips to facilitate monitoring and
increase safety." Final Act. 3. Appellant contends that the reasons to
combine the references "are random." Br. 5. We agree with Appellant.
The Examiner failed to explain adequately what "limitations" of
Zeijlemaker '786, were being proposed to be included in the system and
method of Phillips. To the extent the Examiner was proposing to include a
display of the signal from the implanted system 100 along with an MRI
5
Appeal2014-002981
Application 11/379,847
image in Phillips, the reasoning for the modification is insufficient.
Zeijlemaker '786 suggests displaying sensed events from an IMD along with
an MRI image during the MRI procedure, presumably in an effort to better
coordinate the capture of the MRI image with the sensed event or to aid in
diagnostic efforts by the physician during review of the MRI image. The
Examiner has failed to explain adequately why this suggestion in
Zeijlemaker '786 would have led one having ordinary skill to modify the
system and method of Phillips, which relates to avoiding overheating of
portions of the implantable system and surrounding tissue during an MRI
procedure. In particular, the Examiner has not explained adequately how
displaying sensed events from an IMD along with an MRI image would
facilitate monitoring of the temperature of the IMD lead or surrounding
tissue in Phillips or increase safety of the system and method of Phillips.
The Examiner proposed to further modify the combined system of
Phillips and Zeijlemaker '786, in light of the teaching in Zeijlemaker '975,
"to include a separated detection unit in order to provide [a] remote/mobile
control system instead of a fixed control station." Final Act. 4. We
understand from this assertion that the Examiner is proposing to modify the
system of Phillips to make the receiver 131, MRI sequence control system
130, and signaling element (MRI imaging unit 48 of Zeijlemaker '786),
separate from Phillips's MRI system 104. The Examiner has failed to
explain adequately why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to separate these portions from MRI system 104. In other words, there is
no explanation as to why it would have been desirable to make the proposed
6
Appeal2014-002981
Application 11/379,847
modification. Further, we find no incentive for the proposed modification in
the teaching of Zeijlemaker '975, which discloses using a programmer 50
(external to IMD 10) to adjust the telemetry of IMD 10 in response to
electromagnetic radiation bursts from MRI device 20. Zeijlemaker '975,
para. 33. Further, as noted by Appellant, removing imaging unit 48 from the
MRI device would frustrate the purpose of the MRI device, which is to
generate images for display to physicians. Br. 7.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Phillips, Zeijlemaker '786,
Zeijlemaker '975, Riff, and Magnuson.2 The rejections of dependent claims
3, 5-7, 9, 10, 32, and 34-36 suffer from the same deficiencies as discussed
above for independent claim 1. As such, we likewise do not sustain the
rejections of these dependent claims.
With regard to independent claim 43, the Examiner relies on the same
proposed modification of Phillips with the teachings of Zeijlemaker '786
and Zeijlemaker '975 that we found lacking for the reasons stated above in
the analysis of claim 1. Final Act. 3. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Phillips,
Zeijlemaker '786, Zeijlemaker '975, Riff, and Magnuson. The rejections of
dependent claims 45, 47-52, and 54 suffer from the same deficiencies as
2 We do not need to reach Appellant's arguments contesting the further
proposed modification of Phillips with the teachings of Magnuson (Br. 8-9)
and Riff (Br. 13).
7
Appeal2014-002981
Application 11/379,847
independent claim 43. As such, we likewise do not sustain the rejections of
these dependent claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 32, 34-
36, 43, 45, 47-52, and 54 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
8