KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2021

2021002151 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
15/532,117 06/01/2017 STEFFEN WEISS 2014P01268WOUS 3610
24737 7590 10/01/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
FRITH, SEAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2021 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 STEFFEN WEISS
________________

Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 4–18, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips, N.V. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 In view of the Examiner’s withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2, 3, and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, there are no standing rejections of claims 2, 3, and
19 for review on appeal, and prior art references Biber (US 2010/0176809
A1; published July 15, 2010), Assif (US 2011/0046475 A1; published Feb.
24, 2011), Yang (US 2012/0306494 A1; published Dec. 6, 2012), and
Driesel (US 2014/0197832 A1; published July 17, 2014) are not relied on by
the Examiner in the rejection of the claims 1, 4–18, and 20. See Subsequent
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
2
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “magnetic resonance imaging, in
particular to apparatus and methods for preventing the overheating of a
subject during magnetic resonance imaging.” Spec. 1:2–3. Claims 1, 10,
11, 14, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A magnetic resonance imaging system for acquiring
magnetic resonance data from a subject within an imaging zone,
wherein the magnetic resonance imaging system comprises:
a magnetic resonance imaging antenna comprising a
plurality of loop antenna elements wherein the magnetic
resonance imaging antenna further comprises multiple infrared
thermometry sensors, wherein the magnetic resonance imaging
antenna is configured for being positioned adjacent to an external
surface of the subject, such that at least a portion of the multiple
infrared thermometry sensors becomes directed towards the
external surface when the magnetic resonance imaging antenna
is positioned adjacent to the external surface of the subject;
a memory containing machine executable instructions and
pulse sequence instructions, and
a processor for controlling the magnetic resonance
imaging system, wherein execution of the machine executable
instructions causes the processor to:
acquire the magnetic resonance data by controlling
the magnetic resonance imaging system with the pulse
sequence instructions;

Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief, dated Dec. 28, 2020 (“Subs. Ans.”) 3–
4, 8–9, 17. Claims 2, 3, and 19 are therefore not part of the instant appeal.
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
3
repeatedly measure at least one surface temperature
of the subject with multiple infrared thermometry sensors
during acquisition of the magnetic resonance data; and
perform a predefined action if the at least one
surface temperature is above a predefined temperature, for
reducing the risk of the subject becoming overheated.

THE REJECTIONS3
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Name Reference(s) Date
Grist US 2006/0064002 A1 Mar. 23, 2006
Iwamatsu US 2007/0230767 A1 Oct. 4, 2007
Wohlfarth US 2009/0215384 A1 Aug. 27, 2009
Sueoka US 2013/0154642 A1 June 20, 2013
McBride US 2013/0318693 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
Landschuetz US 2014/0015528 A1 Jan. 16, 2014
Okamoto US 2014/0062485 A1 Mar. 6, 2014
Lee US 2014/0125339 A1 May 8, 2014
Van Den Brink WO 2013/054231 A2 Apr. 18, 2013
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 7–9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Van Den Brink, Sueoka, and
Lee. Final Act. 3–10.
II. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Den Brink, Sueoka, Lee, and
Wohlfarth. Final Act. 16.

3 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and of
claims 2, 3, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn. Subs. Ans.
3.
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
4
III. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Den Brink, Sueoka, Lee, and Grist.
Final Act. 16–18.
IV. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Den Brink, Sueoka, Lee, and
Iwamatsu. Final Act. 18–19, 37–38.
V. Claims 10, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Okamoto, and Grist. Final Act. 20–30, 38–40.
VI. Claims 11 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Den Brink, Sueoka, and Okamoto.
Final Act. 30–35.
VII. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Den Brink, Sueoka, Okamoto, and
Iwamatsu. Final Act. 35.
VIII. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Den Brink, Sueoka, Okamoto,
Iwatmatsu, and McBride. Final Act. 36.
IX. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Van Den Brink, Sueoka, Lee, and
Landschuetz. Final Act. 36–37.

OPINION
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8 and 9
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Van Den
Brink’s “radiofrequency system is considered to be a magnetic resonance
antenna,” wherein “[the] radiofrequency system applies RF energy to the
subject.” Final Act. 3–4 (citing Van Den Brink 1:10–12, 2:19–20). The
Examiner also finds that Van Den Brink discloses that multiple (“at least
one”) temperature sensors may be “integrated in the examination region; e.g.
. . . in the coil array.” Id. at 4 (citing Van Den Brink 9:1–5). The Examiner
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
5
further finds that Van Den Brink’s Figure 1 “shows RF coil system 5
positioned adjacent to the patient for detecting magnetic resonance signals”
and that “[d]etecting temperature at the subjects [sic] skin indicates that the
temperature sensors are directed towards the external surface of the subject.”
Id. at 5 (citing Van Den Brink 9:1–4, 11:17–32, Fig. 1). See also Subs. Ans.
4 (citing Van Den Brink 11:22–32 for disclosing, inter alia, temperature
sensor 16); Van Den Brink 11:22–24 (“[t]he second means of detecting the
actual temperature of the individual’s body is via a temperature sensor 16,
which is applied to the body of the individual S in the examination region
3”).
The Examiner relies on Sueoka for disclosing that an MRI antenna
may comprise multiple infrared thermometry sensors (i.e., “temperatures
sensors 70A through 70D . . . embedded within the [MRI] antenna
structure”). Final Act. 6 (citing Sueoka ¶¶ 73–75, Fig. 2). The Examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious
to have modified the magnetic resonance patient surface
temperature monitoring system of Van Den Brink to incorporate
the infrared thermometry sensor antenna configuration as taught
by Sueoka because infrared radiation thermometers are capable
of measuring the temperature of a measurement object in a
noncontact manner, which is advantageous in terms of taking a
shorter time for measuring temperature.
Final Act. 6–7 (citing Sueoka ¶ 75) (emphasis added); see also Ans. 6
(“[a]lthough Sueoka is concerned with temperatures of the gradient coil, it
teaches . . . that infrared thermometry sensors are used for non-contact
sensing in the magnetic field of an MRI scanner”); Sueoka ¶ 75
(“temperatures sensors 70A to 70D may be infra-red radiation thermometers
. . . capable of measuring the temperature of a measurement object in a
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
6
noncontact manner”). Notably, the Examiner explains (albeit in the context
of dependent claim 7) that Van Den Brink’s RF coil is modified to
incorporate Sueoka’s infrared thermometry sensor antenna configuration,
such that the infrared thermometry sensors “are disposed in the locations of
Sueoka’s teachings,” which are depicted in Sueoka’s Figure 2 as being
distributed about the circumference of the cross-section of a coil. Id. at 8.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection is to modify Van Den Brink’s RF coil, which
has at least one integrated, local sensor, to have a sensor configuration that
includes multiple infrared thermometry sensors embedded within the coil, as
taught in Sueoka.4 See, e.g., Sueoka, Fig. 2 (infrared thermometers 70A to
70D).
Appellant acknowledges that “Van Den Brink suggest[s] that the
temperature sensor 16 could also be applied to . . . the coil array . . .
illustrated as a whole-body RF coil 5 which is mounted around the periphery
of the bore.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Van Den Brink 5:13–26). Appellant
argues, however, that, in Van Den Brink, “the whole-body coil 5 is not
configured to be positioned adjacent to an external surface of the subject,”
and therefore, “even if the temperature sensor were affixed to the RF coil, it
would not ‘become’ directed toward the external surface of the subject when
the magnetic resonance antenna is positioned adjacent the external surface of

4 The Examiner relies on Lee for disclosing “a magnetic resonance imaging
antenna comprising a plurality of loop antenna elements,” and reasons that it
would have been obvious to have modified Van Den Brink’s MRI system, as
modified by Sueoka, “to incorporate the plurality of loop antenna elements
as taught by Lee because utilizing a plurality of RF loop coils can be
arranged to increase the uniformity of an RF magnetic field throughout the
human body and enables independent adjustments to individual coil
elements.” Final Act. 7 (citing, e.g., Lee ¶ 7).

Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
7
the subject.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also argues that “Van Den Brink
does not disclose that the whole-body RF coil is positionable or movable,”
and that, “[i]ndeed, . . . it is not.” Id. at 11–12.
The Examiner responds that, “[e]ven with the use of a full-body coil,
the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘positioned adjacent to an external
surface of the subject’ would include a typical RF coil antenna of an MR
scanner.” Subs. Ans. 5.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
As set forth supra, claim 1 requires that
[a] magnetic resonance imaging antenna is configured for being
positioned adjacent to an external surface of the subject, such that
at least a portion of the multiple infrared thermometry sensors
becomes directed towards the external surface when the
magnetic resonance imaging antenna is positioned adjacent to the
external surface of the subject.
The Specification does not provide a special definition for the claim term
“adjacent.” We find that the broadest reasonable construction of the claim
term “adjacent,” consistent with Appellant’s Specification is “not distant” or
“nearby.” See Appendix A (https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/adjacent (last visited Sept. 16, 2021)).
Van Den Brink discloses:
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
8
As is known in the art, the MRI apparatus 1 includes one or more
powerful, gradient coils and a radio-frequency (RF) system 5
having an RF coil for transmission of a RF signal or field into the
cylindrical examination region 3 in the direction of arrow A
during the MR examination, all of these components forming a
MR generation unit and being conveniently housed within the
housing 4. The cylindrical cavity in the housing 4 which forms
the examination region 3 is dimensioned such that the body of
the individual or subject S is very close to the sides or walls of
the cavity, thus providing only very limited access.
Van Den Brink 10:5–12 (emphasis added). Thus, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Van Den Brink’s RF system 5
(or whole body RF coil, as characterized by Appellant) is adjacent or not
distant from an external surface of the subject, as required by claim 1.
We also find that the claim language “configured for being
positioned” does not require the MRI antenna to be movable, but rather,
requires the MRI antenna to be able to be positioned, for example, in a fixed
position, adjacent to an external surface of the subject, such that at least a
portion of the multiple infrared thermometry sensors become directed
towards the subject’s external surface when so fixed. Van Den Brink’s
Figure 1 depicts RF system 5 as being able to be positioned adjacent to an
external surface of the subject, and therefore, Appellant’s argument also
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Van Den Brink’s
RF system 5 is configured for being positioned, as required by claim 1.
Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (it is improper to read a limitation from the specification into the
claims).
Next, Appellant argues that “Van Den Brink does not disclose
multiple infrared thermometry sensors.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant’s
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
9
argument, however, does not address the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner, which relies on Van Den Brink for disclosing multiple
thermometry sensors and on Sueoka for teaching that, in an MRI
environment, infrared thermometry sensors provide contactless temperature
measurement. See also Subs. Ans. 5–6; id. at 6 (“[a]lthough Sueoka is
concerned with temperatures of the gradient coil, it teaches . . . that infrared
thermometry sensors are used for non-contact sensing in the magnetic field
of an MRI scanner”). Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant also argues that “Sueoka does not embed temperature
sensors in a magnetic resonance imaging antenna structure,” but rather,
Sueoka’s infrared thermometry sensors “are embedded in a gradient coil
26,” which “applies spatial encoding magnetic field gradient pulses in the
imaging region but does not excite, manipulate, nor receive magnetic
resonance data signals from the subject,” and thus, “do not become directed
toward the external surface of the subject.” Appeal Br. 12 (italics added);
Reply Br. 3–4.
Again, Appellant’s argument does not address the Examiner’s
proposed modification of Van Den Brink’s RF coil to incorporate infrared
thermometry sensors embedded in a coil as taught by Sueoka. In other
words, the Examiner does not propose bodily incorporating Sueoka’s
gradient coil into Van Den Brink’s MRI system, but rather, the Examiner’s
combination modifies Van Den Brink’s RF coil. “The test for obviousness
is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
10
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . .” In re Keller, at
425; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Appellant also argues that “Sueoka discloses a different structure
which operates in a different way to achieve a different end result to address
a different problem than Van Den Brink.” Appeal Br. 12. This argument
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning relative
to modifying Van Den Brink, in view of Sueoka. For example, although
Sueoka’s use of contactless infrared sensors measure the temperature of an
object other than the patient within the MRI environment, and integrates the
sensors into a gradient coil assembly rather than an RF coil, Sueoka
nonetheless discloses using multiple infrared sensors embedded in a coil for
contact-less measurements of temperatures in an MRI system, as relied on
by the Examiner.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues for the first time that Lee’s
“transverse electromagnetic (TEM) coil is not a loop coil” and also that
Lee’s “birdcage coil . . . [does] not function as a loop coil.” Reply Br. 4–5.
Appellant does not, however, provide good cause as to why this new
argument relative to the Examiner’s reliance on Lee for disclosing loop
antenna elements was not presented in the Appeal Brief. See Appeal Br. 13–
14 (arguing only that “Lee fails to cure these same shortcomings of Van Den
Brink,” because Lee’s coil “is not positioned adjacent an external surface of
the subject and does not carry thermometry sensors directed,” as claimed).
Thus, Appellant’s new argument is untimely and therefore, waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not
raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner’s answer, . . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
11
the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”); Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of
claims 8 and 9 apart from the arguments presented for independent claim 1
from which they depend; therefore, for essentially the same reasons as set
forth supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9.
Appeal Br. 10–26.
Dependent claim 7
Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1 and recites, in relevant
part, “wherein the magnetic resonance imaging antenna includes capacitors
and wherein the at least a subset of the multiple infrared thermometry
sensors is disposed adjacent the capacitors.” Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Lee discloses “resonant frequency adjustment
capacitors 141, 142, 143, 144” (Final Act. 8) “located throughout the loop
coil system as capacitors are an integral part of the functionality of a
magnetic resonance antenna” (Subs. Ans. 10–11 (citing Lee, Figs. 2, 3)).
Thus, the Examiner reasons that modifying Van Den Brink’s antenna, as
modified by Sueoka and Lee, to include Lee’s loop antenna elements would
“necessitate” placing at least a subset of the multiple infrared thermometry
sensors adjacent to or nearby the capacitors. Final Act. 8. The Examiner
finds that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation ‘adjacent
the capacitors’ would include the integrated temperature sensors in the coils
as taught by the combined invention.” Subs. Ans. 11–12.
Appellant argues that
there is no suggestion of moving the thermal sensor of Van Den
Brink to be adjacent a capacitor of a loop coil, nor is there any
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
12
suggestion of moving the infrared thermometry sensors of
Sueoka out of the gradient coil assembly into the magnetic
imaging antenna, much less positioning the infrared
thermometry sensor adjacent the capacitors of the magnetic
resonance imaging antenna.
Appeal Br. 17. Appellant also argues that “Lee evidences no appreciation
that heating is greater adjacent capacitors, nor does Lee teach or fairly
suggest that the potential for heating adjacent to capacitors is so high that
one should monitor for temperature adjacent the capacitors” and “[n]either
Lee, nor Van Den Brink, nor the combination thereof recognize the added
heating potential adjacent capacitors, much less suggest that temperature
should specifically be sensed adjacent the capacitors.” Reply Br. 6–7.
First, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that the language of
claim 7 is broad, in that only a subset (maybe two) of the multiple infrared
thermometry sensors are required to be adjacent or nearby the capacitors.
Further, to the extent Appellant’s argument is holding the Examiner to the
old TSM (teaching, suggestion, or motivation) standard, such a standard is
not required. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007). The
Examiner is also not proposing moving the thermal sensor of Van Den Brink
to be adjacent a capacitor of a loop coil, as argued by Appellant; rather, the
Examiner reasons that modifying Van Den Brink’s RF coil to incorporate
multiple infrared thermometry sensors embedded in the coil, as taught in
Sueoka, and also to be a plurality of loop antenna elements including
resonant frequency adjustment capacitors, as taught in Lee, would
necessarily result in at least a subset of the sensors being located nearby the
capacitors. Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s reasoning. Finally, the Examiner’s proposed modification is not
required to be for the same purpose as Appellant’s present invention. See In
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
13
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (skilled artisan need not be
motivated to combine the prior art for the reason contemplated by an
inventor).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
7.
Independent claim 14
Independent claim 14 recites
[a] magnetic resonance imaging antenna comprising a plurality
of antenna elements, wherein each of the antenna elements is a
loop antenna element, wherein the magnetic resonance imaging
antenna further comprises a plurality of infrared thermometry
sensors, wherein the magnetic resonance imaging antenna is
configured for being positioned adjacent to an external surface
of the subject, wherein at least a portion of the multiple infrared
thermometry sensors are directed towards the external surface
when the magnetic resonance imaging antenna is positioned
adjacent to the external surface.
Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.).
The Examiner applies the same or similar findings and reasoning
relative to Van Den Brink, Sueoka, and Lee to independent claim 14 as
applied by the Examiner to independent claim 1 discussed supra. Final Act.
9–10.
Appellant argues that “Van Den Brink discloses a whole-body RF coil
5 and a temperature sensor 16 which is not part of the imaging antenna.”
Appeal Br. 22. However, Appellant does not support this conclusory
statement with any argument or evidence, which is contrary to Appellant’s
acknowledgement that “Van Den Brink suggest[s] that the temperature
sensor 16 could also be applied to . . . the coil array . . . illustrated as a
whole-body RF coil 5 which is mounted around the periphery of the bore.”
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
14
Id. at 11 (citing Van Den Brink 5:13–26). Thus, we are not apprised of error
in the Examiner’s reliance on Van Den Brink’s RF system 5 as
corresponding to an MRI antenna or on Van Den Brinks’s teaching that a
temperature sensor may be integrated into the antenna (or coil), in view of
Appellant’s conclusory argument. In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642 (CCPA
1978) (“Mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements in the
specification, unsupported by objective evidence, are insufficient to establish
unexpected results.”)
Appellant also argues that
[t]he infrared thermometry sensors of Sueoka are not a part of an
imaging antenna, are not disposed adjacent an external surface of
the subject and are not directed toward the external surface of the
subject and would be blocked from receiving IR light by RF coil
components and gradient coil components.
Appeal Br. 22.
As discussed supra, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error
in the Examiner’s rejection, which does not bodily incorporate the
positioning of the infrared thermometry sensors in a gradient magnetic field
coil into Van Den Brink’s gradient coils, but rather incorporates a Sueoka’s
multiple infrared thermometry sensors to be embedded in Van Den Brink’s
RF coil or antenna of RF system 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 14.
Rejections II, IV, and IX
Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of
claims 4, 6, and 16, which depend from independent claim 1, and claim 15,
which depends from independent claim 14, apart from the arguments
presented for independent claims 1 and 14; therefore, for essentially the
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
15
same reasons as set forth supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 4, 6, 15, and 16. Appeal Br. 10–26.
Rejection III
Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1 and recites, in relevant
part,
[w]herein the pulse sequence instructions generate pulse
sequences modeled to keep induced temperatures within safety
margins which increase scan time and wherein the processor is
further configured to reduce the safety margins during
generation of the pulse sequences to reduce scan time based on
the measured surface temperatures.
Appeal Br. 28–29 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
The Examiner applies the same or similar findings and reasoning
relative to at least Van Den Brink and Grist to dependent claim 5 as applied
by the Examiner to independent claim 20 discussed infra. Final Act. 16–18;
25–30. Notably, claim 5 requires, relative to pulse sequence instructions,
“reduc[ing] the safety margin,” as compared to claim 20’s requirement of
“shorten[ing] magnetic resonance data acquisition times.” Appeal Br. 28–
29, 33–34 (Claims App.). It is known in the prior art, for example, that (i)
“[t]he specific absorption rate (SAR5) of RF energy by individual who
undergo examination with a MR apparatus is . . . the subject of strict
regulation” (Van Den Brink 1:7–9); (ii) a desirable object of an MRI system
invention is “to shorten the scan time of MRI procedures” (Grist ¶ 13); (iii)
it is desired that “the rate of image data acquisition is slowed only when
tissue temperature actually rises to an undesirable level at any location in the

5 Spec. 1:22–23 (“The term Specific Absorption Ratio (SAR) is the radio
frequency power absorbed per unit mass in tissue and is a measure of
overheating.”).
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
16
subject” (Grist ¶ 13). Thus, these limitations of claims 5 and 20 are similar,
in that it is known in the prior art that reducing safety margins (i.e., allowing
a higher rate of absorption of RF energy by the subject) corresponds to
shortening data acquisition times (i.e., allowing faster scan times). See also
Final Act. 17 (relative to claim 5, “the SAR limit . . . is considered to be a
safety margin and . . . increasing of SAR loads . . . reduce[s] scan times”).
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons as stated infra with
respect to independent claim 20, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 5.
Rejection V
Independent claim 10
Independent claim 10 recites, in relevant part, “a computer processor
configured to control the [MRI] system to: . . . [b]ased on the measured
surface temperature, modify the pulse sequence instructions during the
acquisition of the RF magnetic resonance data to accelerate the acquisition
of the magnetic resonance data.” Appeal Br. 30–31 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added).
Appellant submits, “Claim 10 is based on claim 1 but includes several
narrowing limitations.” Appeal Br. 18. Although Appellant recites such
claim limitations, for example, requiring “the magnetic resonance imaging
antenna to be configured to at least partially conform to the external surface
of the subject” and “for the loop elements to extend generally parallel to the
external surface of the subject,” Appellant does not present arguments
directed to these claim limitations. Appeal Br. 18; see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires more than recitation
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
17
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the elements are not found
in the prior art).
Appellant also argues that “Grist does not teach or fairly suggest
increasing the SAR load.” Appeal Br. 18. In other words, we understand
Appellant’s contention to be that Grist fails to disclose “modif[ing] the pulse
sequence instructions during the acquisition of the RF magnetic resonance
data to accelerate the acquisition of the magnetic resonance data,” as
claimed, which also increases the radio frequency power absorbed per unit
mass in the tissue, raising the temperature of the tissue (or SAR load).
The Examiner applies the same or similar findings and reasoning
relative to at least Van Den Brink and Grist to independent claim 10 as
applied by the Examiner to independent claim 20 discussed infra. Final Act.
20–30. Notably, claim 10 requires, relative to pulse sequence instructions,
“accelerat[ing] the acquisition of the magnetic resonance data,” which, as
recognized by the prior art and explained infra, is another way of stating
claim 20’s requirement of “shorten[ing] magnetic resonance data acquisition
times.” Appeal Br. 30–31, 33–34 (Claims App.).
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons as stated infra with
respect to independent claim 20, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 10.
Dependent claim 18
Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of claim
18 apart from the arguments presented for independent claim 11 from which
it depends; therefore, for essentially the same reasons as set forth infra, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. Appeal Br. 20.

Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
18
Independent claim 20
Independent claim 20 recites “[a] magnetic resonance imaging system
for acquiring magnetic resonance data from a subject within an imaging
zone,” comprising, inter alia,
a processor configured to control the magnetic resonance
imaging system to:
acquire the magnetic resonance data from the subject
using magnetic resonance sequences that induce heating in the
subject;
repeatedly measure surface temperatures of the subject at
the measurement points with the multiple infrared thermometry
sensors during acquisition of the magnetic resonance data, and
in response to the surface temperatures at one or more of
the measurement points being below heating limits during
acquisition of the magnetic resonance data, recalculating the
magnetic resonance sequences to shorten magnetic resonance
data acquisition times.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relies on Van Den Brink for disclosing an MRI system
for acquiring magnetic resonance data, and also for disclosing acquiring the
magnetic resonance data from the subject using magnetic resonance
sequences that induce heating in the subject, repeatedly measuring surface
temperatures of the subject at the measurement points with the multiple
infrared thermometry sensors (as modified by Sueoka) during acquisition of
the magnetic resonance data, and, in response to the surface temperature
measurements, performing a predetermined action. Final Act. 27 (citing
Van Den Brink 2:17–34). In Van Den Brink, the predetermined action is to
adjust cooling devices (i.e., fan 7, cooling pad 9), during acquisition of the
magnetic resonance data and based on measured surface temperatures of the
subject:
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
19
the temperature control system 6 of the apparatus 1 comprises a
control unit 12, including a computer processor, which is
configured to periodically adjust operation of the two cooling
devices 7, 8 over a duration of the MR examination (thereby
adjusting the cooling effect they generate on the body of the
subject S) . . . in dependence upon the thermal loading that the
individual is actually detected as having received from the radio-
frequency system 5 during the MR examination.
Van Den Brink 10:29–11:2. The Examiner acknowledges that Van Den
Brink does not disclose that the predetermined action may be shortening the
magnetic resonance data acquisition (or scan) times. Final Act. 28.
The Examiner relies on Grist for teaching that the predetermined
action may be recalculating the magnetic resonance sequences to shorten
magnetic resonance data acquisition times, as required by claim 20. Final
Act. 29 (citing, e.g., Grist ¶ 47). The Examiner finds that Grist teaches
“increasing SAR load in response to temperature measurements being under
a SAR limit” and that “the spacing between RF pulses can be changed,”
wherein “‘minimizing scan time’ . . . is considered to be an acceleration of
MRI data acquisition.” Subs. Ans. 18 (citing Grist ¶¶ 49, 51). Indeed, Grist
discloses, albeit in the context of a prescan mode to acquire a baseline
thermal image of the subject (Grist ¶¶ 45, 46), that “[i]f the SAR limit is not
exceeded, a determination is made . . . whether the pulse sequence can be
changed for the better6 with a resulting incremental increase in SAR” and

6 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “‘[c]hanged for the
better’ appears to be a mental operation performed by the technician in the
nature of making what the technician considers to be appropriate changes in
the pulse sequence” (Appeal Br. 19), but rather, that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that a change for the better in this context
means a shorter scan time (and thus, increased SAR load) for the patient.
See, e.g., Grist ¶ 11 (“changes are made in the prescribed pulse sequence so
that the scan can continue at an optimal rate without violating SAR rules”).
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
20
“[i]f so, the pulse sequence is changed and the system loops back to repeat
the prescan process” (id. ¶ 47).
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to have
modified Van Den Brink’s MRI system, as modified by Sueoka7 and
Okamoto,8
to incorporate the shortening of magnetic resonance data
acquisition times in response to temperature measurement as
taught by Grist because the patient experience is improved by
shortening of scan time for MRI procedures and this is enabled
by dynamically adjusting RF energy application. It reduces the
necessary safety factors required and keeps imaging fast unless
temperatures rise to undesirable levels.
Final Act. 30 (citing Grist ¶ 13).
Similar to independent claim 1, Appellant argues that,
in Sueoka, the temperature sensors 70A-70D are not disposed in
a magnetic resonant imaging antenna, but rather are embedded
in the gradient coil assembly, which includes the main gradient
coil, iron shims, shim trays, and a shield gradient coil. . . . If such
an assembly were incorporated into Van Den Brink, . . . it would
be placed outside of the whole-body RF coil 5 where it would be
visually blocked from infrared temperature sensing of the patient
body temperature.
Appeal Br. 25; Reply Br. 12.9

7 Sueoka is relied on by the Examiner for disclosing multiple infrared
thermometry sensors embedded in a coil. Final Act. 28.
8 Okamoto is relied on by the Examiner for disclosing a plurality of loop
antenna elements. Final Act. 29.
9 Appellant’s new argument presented for the first time in the Reply
Brief— that “Van Den Brink is already making a non-contact temperature
measurement . . . [such] that if one were to make a second, redundant
measurement, one would be motivated to use a different type of temperature
measurement, such as a direct contact temperature measurement”—is not
responsive to the Examiner’s rejection, which modifies (or replaces) Van
Den Brink’s non-contact sensor to be multiple infrared thermometry sensors
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
21
We are not persuaded by this argument for the same reasons as stated
relative to independent claim 1 discussed supra, namely, that the Examiner’s
modification of Van Den Brink relies on Sueoka’s teaching of incorporating
infrared thermometry sensors embedded within a coil, but does not bodily
incorporate Sueoka’s gradient coil assembly into Van Den Brink’s MRI
system. See also Subs. Ans. 18 (“The combined invention would not utilize
the position of the sensors in the gradient coil.”).
Appellant also submits that
[c]laim 20 further calls for the processor to be configured to
during [sic] acquisition of magnetic resonance data, in response
to surface temperature of one or more of the measuring points
being below heating limits, recalculating the magnetic resonance
sequence to shorten the magnetic resonance data acquisition
time.
Appeal Br. 25. Appellant argues that “Grist does not teach or fairly suggest
increasing the SAR load.” Appeal Br. 18. In support, Appellant submits
that, in Grist, “while operation 310 of the pre-scan sequence may result in an
increase in the SAR, it is not performed during the acquisition of the RF
magnetic resonance data,” and that, in Grist, “[d]uring the acquisition of the
magnetic resonance data by the method of Fig. 5, adjustments are only made
to reduce the SAR.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies
on Van Den Brink for disclosing a processor that responds to the measured
surface temperatures during data acquisition (as compared to a pre-scan
calibration) by performing a predetermined action, and on Grist for the
teaching, generally, that such a predetermined action may be to adjust the

distributed in Van Den Brink’s RF coil, and is also untimely. Final Act. 28;
Reply Br. 13.
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
22
RF energy absorbed by the subject. As set forth supra, it is known in the
prior art that the RF energy absorbed by the subject is directly dependent
upon the scan time (i.e., time taken to acquire data). In addition, the
Examiner does not modify Van Den Brink’s processor to only import the
specific pre-scan process described in Grist relative to lengthening magnetic
resonance data acquisition times.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 20.
Rejection VI
Regarding independent claim 11, Appellant argues that claim 11 is
“patentable for the reason set forth in conjunction with claim 1.” Appeal Br.
19. As discussed supra, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
presented for claim 1.
Appellant also argues, with respect to claim 11, that Sueoka’s
temperatures sensors 70A-70D are “not in a magnetic resonance imaging
antenna” or “positioned adjacent nor directed toward the external surface of
the subject,” and that “[b]eing buried in the gradient coil assembly of
Sueoka, the temperature sensors 70A-70D cannot measure a surface
temperature of the subject.” Appeal Br. 19–20; Reply Br. 9. However, as
discussed supra, this argument is not responsive to the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner, which does not bodily incorporate Sueoka’s
gradient coil assembly into Van Den Brink’s MRI system, but rather
incorporates Sueoka’s multiple infrared thermometry sensor configuration
into Van Den Brink’s RF coil or antenna of RF system 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 11. Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
23
dependent claim 17, which depends from independent claim 11, apart from
the arguments presented for independent claim 11. Appeal Br. 20.
Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
Rejection VII
Claim 12 depends from independent claim 11 and recites, in relevant
part, “wherein the method further comprises placing an infrared transparent
garment on the outer surface of the subject before acquiring the magnetic
resonance data.” Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relies on Iwamatsu for disclosing “an electromagnetic
medical imaging system,” which comprises “placing an infrared transparent
garment on the outer surface of a subject before acquiring the magnetic
resonance data.” Final Act. 35 (citing Iwamatsu ¶¶ 132–135). The
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to have modified Van
Den Brink’s MRI system, as modified by Sueoka and Okamoto, to include
the step of placing an infrared transparent garment on the outer surface of
the subject, as taught in Iwamatsu, to provide “visual concealment of the
patient’s body while still allowing infrared wavelengths to pass through it;
which adds additional privacy for the patient.” Id.
Appellant argues that “Iwamatsu is not analogous art,” because
“Iwamatsu is directed to an alternate to magnetic resonance.” Appeal Br.
20. In support, Appellant submits that “Iwamatsu teaches replacing
magnetic resonance, x-ray CT, or PET imaging with a different imaging
technique using infrared frequency electromagnetic waves.” Id.
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention Toys, LLC. v.
MGA Ent., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
24
define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from the same field
of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is
not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner finds that “Iwamatsu is in the field of medical imaging
and diagnostics and scanning utilizing electromagnetic waves.” Subs. Ans.
13. Notably, Iwamatsu provides a description of the “BACKGROUND
ART” relevant to Iwamatsu’s invention:
Conventionally, medical image diagnostic methods and
apparatus have become widely available, such as an ultrasonic
echo diagnostic method and apparatus, an X-ray tomography and
an apparatus therefor (X-ray CT), a magnetic resonance method
and apparatus (MRI), and a positron emission tomography and
an apparatus therefor (PET).
Iwamatsu ¶ 2.
We agree with the Examiner and find that both Appellant’s invention
and Iwamatsu are in the field of endeavor of medical imaging and
diagnostics, and scanning utilizing electromagnetic waves. Thus, Iwamatsu
is analogous art to the claimed invention and properly relied on by the
Examiner.
Appellant also argues that “[i]f one were to follow the fair teachings
of Iwamatsu, one would replace the magnetic resonance imaging system of
claims 11 and 12 with an infrared wavelength imaging system.” Appeal Br.
20; Reply Br. 9–10. However, this is not the rejection articulated by the
Examiner, which relies on Iwamatsu only for its disclosure of an infrared
transparent garment, and thus, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s finding or reasoning.
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
25
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
12.
Rejection VIII
Claim 13 depends from dependent claim 12, which depends from
independent claim 11, and further recites, in relevant part, “wherein the
infrared transparent garment is fabricated at least partially from polyethylene
foil.” Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relies on McBride for disclosing “a gown for use in
medical procedures . . . fabricated at least partially from polyethylene foil.”
Final Act. 36 (citing McBride ¶ 74). The Examiner also finds that “[h]eat
radiates through a variety of materials and heat radiating through a thin film
of polyethylene would be readily measured by infrared temperature
sensors.” Subs. Ans. 14. The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to have modified Van Den Brink’s MRI system, as modified by
Sueoka, Okamoto, and Iwamatsu, to use an infrared transparent garment
fabricated at least partially from polyethylene foil, as taught in McBride,
“[to] reduce[] risk of strike-through or wicking-through by liquids that carry
infectious microorganisms.” Id. (citing McBride ¶ 74).
Appellant argues that Iwamatsu is not analogous art; however, for the
reasons set forth supra, we find that Iwamatsu is analogous art to the
Appellant’s invention and properly relied on by the Examiner. Appeal Br.
20.
Appellant also argues that “there is no indication in McBride that the
laminate material or hospital gowns made therefrom are transparent” and
that “McBride gives no reason to believe that hospital gowns should be
infrared transparent.” Id. at 21; Reply Br. 10. Appellant submits that “[i]n
Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
26
order not to block the infrared light, the McBride material would need to be
engineered/reengineered to be infrared transparent.” Reply Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner
proposes modifying Iwamatsu’s infrared transparent garment to be at least
partially made from polyethylene foil because McBride discloses
polyethylene as a known hospital garment material for infectious disease
control, and further, in view of the Examiner’s finding that it is also known
that heat radiating through a thin film of polyethylene is readily measurable
by infrared temperature sensors. Appellant’s argument does not dispute the
Examiner’s findings or explain why or how McBride’s polyethylene film
would be required to be reengineered to be infrared transparent.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
13.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–18, and 20 is affirmed.

Appeal 2021-002151
Application 15/532,117
27
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7–9, 14 103 Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Lee
1, 7–9, 14
4 103 Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Lee, Wohlfarth
4
5 103 Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Lee, Grist
5
6, 16 103 Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Lee, Iwamatsu
6, 16
10, 18, 20 103 Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Okamoto, Grist
10, 18, 20
11, 17 103 Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Okamoto
11, 17
12 103 Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Okamoto, Iwamatsu
12
13 103 Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Okamoto, Iwamatsu,
McBride
13
15 103 Van Den Brink, Sueoka,
Lee, Landschuetz
15
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–18, 20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED