KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2021

2021001340 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2021)

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.
15/124,742 09/09/2016 DANIEL WIRTZ 2013P02190WOUS 4403
24737 7590 09/28/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
MAYNARD, JOHNATHAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@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 DANIEL WIRTZ and CHRISTOPH LEUSSLER
Appeal 2021-001340
Application 15/124,742
Technology Center 3700
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DANIEL S. SONG, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 16–27. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-001340
Application 15/124,742

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a magnetic resonance antenna with
electronic dosimeters. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A magnetic resonance antenna assembly, comprising:
one or more antenna elements; and
multiple antenna element electronic dosimeters separated
and spaced apart from each other and configured to measure a
cumulative radiation dose of ionizing radiation received by the
magnetic resonance antenna assembly.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Thomson US 2006/0027756 A1 Feb. 9, 2006
Piron US 2007/0016003 A1 Jan. 18, 2007
Saoudi US 2009/0010390 A1 Jan. 8, 2009
Crijns (“Crijns ’068”) US 2014/0081068 A1 Mar. 20, 2014
S. Crijns (“Crijns”) Radiation Induced RF
Coil Degradation in
Hybrid MRI-
Accelerator Systems,
Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag.
Reson. Med. 19, pg.
3807
2011
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–3, 5–7, 16–23, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crijns in view of Saoudi. Final
Act. 10.
Appeal 2021-001340
Application 15/124,742

3
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Crijns in view of Saoudi and Piron. Final Act. 30.
3. Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Crijns in view of Saoudi and in further view of Crijns
’068. Final Act. 31.
OPINION
Rejection 1: Crijns in view of Saoudi
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–7, 16–23, 26, and 27 as being
unpatentable over Crijns in view of Saoudi. Final Act. 10. As to
independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Crijns discloses a magnetic
resonance antenna assembly with a dosimeter substantially as claimed, but
finds that Crijns “does not disclose multiple electronic dosimeters separated
and spaced apart from each other.” Final Act. 11. The Examiner relies on
Saoudi for disclosing multiple radiation detectors arranged in a two-
dimensional array. Final Act. 11–12 (citing Saoudi ¶ 61).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to have modified Crijns
disclosure of dosimetry film with Saoudi’s teaching of multiple electronic
dosimeters” in view of Saoudi’s disclosure that “‘embodiments of the
invention measure the actual dose received at the specified locations and do
so in a relatively simple manner, it is envisaged that they might be used to
complement or even supplant known techniques for tracking movement of
the target during therapy.’” Final Act. 12 (citing Saoudi ¶ 81). The
Examiner also states that mere duplication of parts “has no patentable
significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Final Act. 12.
According to the Examiner, “there is clear motivation for one of ordinary
Appeal 2021-001340
Application 15/124,742

4
skill in the art to modify the teachings of Crijns with those of Saoudi to
receive the actual dose at distinct locations in a simple manner” or to
“duplicate the function of monitoring radiation dose for various components
of an MRI system by providing additional dosimeters as there is no
unexpected result.” Ans. 9–10.
The Appellant disagrees that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to modify Crijns in view of Saoudi as proposed
by the Examiner because “Saoudi discloses ‘a dosimeter 20 shown . . .
mounted upon the patient’s abdomen’ . . . for monitoring a radiation dose to
which a patient is exposed . . . not an antenna.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Saoudi
¶¶ 8–10, 32, emphasis removed). According to the Appellant, “neither
Crijns nor Saoudi nor any combination thereof discloses or makes obvious
any magnetic resonance antenna assembly as claimed,” and “the proposed
combination . . . lack[s] any reasons with rational underpinnings” and “does
not provide any reason to modify Crijns’ device to include multiple antenna
element electronic dosimeters.” Appeal Br. 6, 9, 10 (emphasis and
underlining removed).
In addition, in rebuttal to the Examiner’s Answer asserting that there
exists clear motivation for the combination, the Appellant argues that “Crijns
teaches away from such a combination” in advising “guarantee[ing] that
hardware can be positioned outside the treatment beam.” Reply Br. 3–4
(quoting Crijns, Conclusion) (emphasis and underlining removed).
According to the Appeallant, “a person of skill in the art would understand
that hardware should be positioned to guarantee that it would not be exposed
to radiation and, thus, dosimeters would not be needed to measure a
Appeal 2021-001340
Application 15/124,742

5
magnetic resonance antenna assembly’s cumulative exposure to radiation
when following such recommendation.” Reply Br. 3–4.
We find the Appellant’s arguments persuasive. It is not apparent to us
why a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of teachings in Crijns
establishing cumulative damage of radiation on coil electronics, would have
been motivated to provide a plurality of electronic dosimeters to monitor an
antenna element as proposed by the rejection, rather than pursuing the
solution of positioning such components “outside the treatment beam” as
Crijns explicitly teaches. Crijns, Conclusion. “It is impermissible . . . to
pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a
given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full
appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in
the art.” In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965). Indeed, we find
merit in the Appellant’s rebuttal that Crijns appears to teach away from the
proposed combination in advising “guarantee[ing] that hardware can be
positioned outside the treatment beam.” Crijns, Conclusion. “A reference
may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. The Appellant’s remaining
arguments directed to Saoudi’s disclosure of multiple detectors, the
definition of “detector,” and unexpected results, as well as the Examiner’s
responses thereto, are moot. Appeal Br. 7–8, 10, 12; Ans. 9–11, 14–15, 17.
We also reverse this rejection as to claims 2, 3, 5–7, and 16–23 that
ultimately depend from claim 1. The Appellant’s arguments specifically
Appeal 2021-001340
Application 15/124,742

6
directed to dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 16, and 21–23, as well as the
Examiner’s responses thereto, are moot. Appeal Br. 13–18; Ans. 19–22, 25–
26. The rejection of independent claim 26 is substantively the same as the
rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 26–29. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
26, and claim 27 depending therefrom, is reversed for the same reasons as
claim 1.

Rejection 2: Crijns in view of Saoudi and Piron
Claim 4, which ultimately depends from claim 1, is rejected as being
unpatentable over Crijns in view of Saoudi and Piron. Final Act. 30. The
Appellant relies on dependency on claim 1 for patentability of claim 4.
Appeal Br. 20. As the Appellant correctly argues, the Examiner’s
application of Piron “does not remedy the deficiencies of Crijns and Saoudi
as set forth above with respect to claim 1.” Appeal Br. 20 (underlining
omitted). Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of claim 4.

Rejection 3: Crijns in view of Saoudi and Crijns ’068
Claims 24 and 25, which depend from claim 1, are rejected as being
unpatentable over Crijns in view of Saoudi and in further view of Crijns
’068. Final Act. 31. The Appellant relies on dependency on claim 1 for
patentability of these claims. Appeal Br. 20. As the Appellant correctly
argues, the Examiner’s application of Crijns ’068 “does not remedy the
deficiencies of Crijns and Saoudi as set forth above with respect to claim[]
1.” Appeal Br. 20 (underlining omitted). Accordingly, we reverse this
rejection of claims 24 and 25. The Appellant’s arguments specifically
Appeal 2021-001340
Application 15/124,742

7
directed to each of these dependent claims, and the Examiner’s responses
thereto, are moot. Appeal Br. 20–21; Ans. 27–29.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7,
16–23, 26,
27
103 Crijns, Saoudi 1–3, 5–7,
16–23, 26,
27
4 103 Crijns, Saoudi,
Piron
4
24, 25 103 Crijns, Saoudi,
Crijns ’068
24, 25
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 16–27

REVERSED