KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2020

14787329 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2020)

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.
14/787,329 10/27/2015 SHUFANG DONG 2013P00219WOUS 7648
24737 7590 06/10/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
MEHL, PATRICK M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2020 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 SHUFANG DONG
____________

Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–3, 5–9, and 21–26. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V., as the
Applicant and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a subject support platform for an
imaging system. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. An imaging system, comprising:
a first scanner with a first examination region;
a subject support, including:
a tabletop configured to position a subject or object at
least two different positions in the examination region,
wherein a deflection of the tabletop is different at the at
least two different positions; and
a base configured to position the tabletop vertically in
the first examination region; and
a vertical drive system configured to produce an electrical
signal indicative of a weight of a subject/object on the tabletop;
a subject/object weight estimator configured to estimate a
weight of a subject or object on the tabletop based on the
electrical signal;
a deflection delta predictor configured to predict a
deflection delta of the tabletop between the at least two
different positions based on the weight, a present horizontal
position of the tabletop, a present vertical position of the base,
and a predetermined deflection data look up table, which
includes a deflection delta value for different combinations of
weight, horizontal position of the tabletop, and vertical position
of the base; and
wherein the predicted deflection delta value is used to
correct for the deflection.

Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Nasuta US 5,393,939 Feb. 28, 1995
Bruns US 5,666,295 Sept. 9, 1997
Bernstein US 6,026,318 Feb. 15, 2000
Vaisburd US 2002/0122575 A1 Sept. 5, 2002
Farooqui US 2008/0235873 Al Oct. 2, 2008
Aulbach DE 102007060690 A1 June 25, 2009
NXT Motor Internals non-patent literature
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking
written description support.
2. Claims 1–3, 5–9, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Vaisburd, Aulbach, and Nasuta.
3. Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vaisburd, Aulbach, Nasuta, and Bruns.
4. Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vaisburd, Aulbach, Nasuta, Bruns, Farooqui, NXT®
Motor Internals, and Bernstein.
OPINION
Written Description – Claims 23 and 26
Claim 23 depends indirectly from independent system claim 1 and
claim 26 depends from independent method claim 9. Claims App.
Claim 23 contains the following limitation.
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
4
a horizontal drive system, wherein the subject/object weight
estimator extracts the weight from a horizontal motor current
during an acceleration and a deceleration by averaging the
acceleration or the deceleration and comparing the averaged
acceleration or averaged deceleration with a calibrated value.
Id. Claim 26 contains a substantially similar limitation. Id. Appellant
argues these claims together. Appeal Br. 3–4. We select claim 23 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner takes the position that the claimed subject matter is not
described in Appellant’s disclosure in a manner that demonstrates that
Appellant’s were actually in possession of the subject matter at the time of
invention. Final Act. 4–5.
Appellant directs our attention to page 7 of the Specification which
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
In FIGURE 8, the device 526 includes the vertical drive
system 512. For example, in one instance, the motor current of
the motor of the vertical drive system 512 is used to estimate
the weight. For this, the motor current can be the static vertical
holding current. Then, by releasing the vertical holding brake
and using the servo motor to hold the vertical position for a
second or so, the motor current is sampled and averaged, and
then compared with a calibrated value to extract the patient
weight information. In alternative embodiments, the constant
speed vertical motion current, or the horizontal motor current
during acceleration and deceleration phase can be used to
extract the weight.
Spec. 7, ll. 8–15 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that the italicized
portion of the foregoing passage provides written description support for the
claim. Appeal Br. 3–4.
In response, the Examiner states that Appellant’s Specification
provides insufficient detail regarding how acceleration measurements can be
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
5
used to derive the weight of the patient. Ans. 3. According to the Examiner,
knowledge of performing a weight calculation using a vertical drive does not
readily translate to a horizontal drive. Id.
[T]he forces applied for the horizontal drive are more
complicated since the tabletop with the patient weight is sliding
horizontally with the additional friction force, reaction force
and other forces applied and with some deformation/deflection
of the table top as considered within the present invention with
possible torque action which are affecting the acceleration or
deceleration of the tabletop in some way that the Appellant did
not describe in sufficient details such that one person of
ordinary skills in the art would have been aware that the
Appellants were actually in possession of such method at the
time of the invention.
Id. at 4.
In reply, Appellant reiterates its position from the Appeal Brief and
then asserts that
[T]he horizontal drive system motor current to maintain a given
acceleration and deceleration, which is based on the weight on
the tabletop, is translated via a corresponding calibration value
to a weight of the subject on the tabletop.
Reply Br. 2.
The specification of a patent as filed must “contain a written
description of the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). A specification has an
adequate written description when it “reasonably conveys to those skilled in
the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date” of the patent. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). “The essence of the written
description requirement is that a patent applicant, as part of the bargain with
the public, must describe his or her invention so that the public will know
what it is and that he or she has truly made the claimed invention.” Nuvo
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
6
Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Designated Activity Company v. Dr. Reddy’s
Labs Inc., 923 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2019) quoting AbbVie
Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1298
(Fed. Cir. 2014). The purpose of the written description requirement is to
prevent an applicant from later asserting that he invented that which he did
not; the applicant for a patent is therefore required to recount his invention in
such detail that his future claims can be determined to be encompassed
within his original creation. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc.,
314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
The level of detail required to satisfy the written description
requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on
the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Ariad, 598
F.3d at 1351. With respect to generic claims, the Federal Circuit has set
forth a number of factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure,
including the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and
content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, and the
predictability of the aspect at issue. Id.
In the instant case, neither Appellant nor the Examiner provides
analysis or discussion of the various Ariad factors listed above. The
Examiner fails to convincingly explain why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not understand that Appellant possessed the invention merely by
stating the intended result. On the other hand, Appellant’s disclosure
provides little or no actual teaching and essentially presumes that a person of
ordinary skill in the art already knows how to determine weight based on
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
7
horizontal motor drive current.2 We find this aspect of the disclosure to be
somewhat troubling, but the issue goes more to whether the subject matter of
the claim is enabled as opposed to whether there is written description
support. Enablement is a different requirement from that of written
description support to demonstrate possession. 3 Carnegie Mellon
University v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1121 (Fed.
Cir. 2008); see also Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1344. The claims here have adequate
support to demonstrate possession.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s Section 112 written description
rejection of claims 23 and 26.
Unpatentability of Claims 1–3, 5–9, 21, and 24
Over Vaisburd, Aulbach, and Nasuta
Appellant argues claims 1–3, 5–9, 21, and 24 as a group. Appeal
Br. 4–6. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Vaisburd discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for measuring/estimating the weight of a subject with a
vertical drive system, for which the Examiner relies on Aulbach and Nasuta.

2 We are mindful that the laws of physics relating to forces to overcome
friction and move a mass in a horizontal direction are well-known and
generally understood by an artisan of ordinary skill. See Streck, Inc. v.
Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 665 F.3d 1269, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(explaining that a patent preferably omits what is well known in the art). We
do not believe that more than ordinary skill is required to correlate such
forces with motor current.
3 We decline to enter a new ground of rejection based on lack of enablement.
The Board enters a new ground of rejection at its discretion, and no
inference should be drawn from a failure to exercise that discretion. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1213.02.
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
8
Final Act. 5–9. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify Vaisburd by the teachings of Aulbach and Nasuta to achieve the
claimed invention. Id. at 7–9. According to the Examiner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have done this to provide a height correction
capability and improved positioning of tumors detected by multiple
modalities. Id.
Appellant argues that Aulbach does not disclose a deflection delta
predictor that predicts a deflection delta based on a vertical position of the
base. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that Aulbach is limited to actual
deflection delta based on actual vertical height of the table top. Id.
Similarly, Appellant argues that Vaisburd does not predict a deflection delta
as claimed. Id. (“[N]o prediction is made”).
In response, the Examiner looks to page 1 and Figs. 2–4 of
Appellant’s disclosure to determine the meaning of “deflection delta.”
Ans. 4. The Examiner quotes Appellant as disclosing that “[t]he difference
between the deflections 206 and 306, or a deflection delta, represents a
vertical height difference of the table top 114 at the two different locations.”
Ans. 4–5; Spec. p. 1, ll. 18–20. The Examiner provides annotated versions
of Appellant’s Figures 2–4 to illustrate the point. Ans. 5. Referring to the
laws of physics, the Examiner interprets “deflection delta” as a value that is
independent of the vertical position of either the tabletop or the “base” on
which the tabletop rests. Id. at 6. With respect to Appellant’s “prediction”
argument, the Examiner notes the similarity between Appellant’s disclosure
and that of Vaisburd. Ans. 7 (citing Vaisburd, ¶¶ 44, 51–53; Figs. 2, 3A,
and 3B).
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
9
Furthermore, the Examiner notes an anomaly regarding Appellant’s
use of the term “predict”:
[T]he examiner is pointing out that the term “predict” appears
to be used in the claim out of context, since the determination/
prediction of the deflections is initially based on the distributed
weight of the tabletop with or without the patient and the
horizontal overhanging distance of the patient support, for
which the examiner provided the combined teachings of
Vaisburd and Aulbach. The total correction along the vertical
direction is performed/predicted after the determination/
prediction of the deflections or deflection delta since the
specification appears to define the deflection delta as the
difference between two deflections with the same reference/
vertical position.
Ans. 8.
In reply, Appellant argues that the predicted deflection delta is
dependent upon the height of the base. Reply Br. 4. Appellant further
argues that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneously based on deflections that
are “actually measured.” Id.
Appellant’s invention, as well as Vaisburd and Aulbach, all deal with
the effect of the force of gravity on the extended portion of a cantilevered
platform. According to well-known laws of physics, the far end of a
cantilevered platform will deflect downwardly as a function of: (1) the
amount of weight that is distributed over the cantilevered portion of the
platform; and (2) the distance that such weight is offset away from the base
that provides vertical support for the platform. Practitioners would also
understand that the amount of deflection can be affected by the relative
rigidity or flexibility of the platform and the materials used therein. See,
e.g., Vaisburd ¶ 39. Practitioners understand that increasing the amount of
weight tends to increase the amount of deflection at the far end of the
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
10
platform. Increasing the horizontal offset distance of the weight relative to
the location of the base support also tends to increase the amount of
deflection.4
Vaisburd addresses a known problem in multi-modality imaging
systems. Vaisburd ¶¶ 3–5. “If two images are not aligned properly, then the
comparison of findings from one image with those of another image will be
faulty.” Id. ¶ 3. Vaisburd recognizes that image alignment from successive
imaging devices in multi-modality imaging systems is affected by the
amount of differential “sag” that occurs as a cantilevered stretcher is
extended. Id. ¶ 5. “As a result of the differential sag, the images from the
various imaging systems are not properly aligned.” Id.
Vaisburd discloses a multi-modality imaging system including near
imaging volume 220 and far imaging volume 210. Id. ¶ 31, Fig. 1. It further
discloses stretcher 100 that accommodates a subject. Id. ¶ 30, Fig. 1.
Stretcher 100 extends, in a cantilevered manner, into gantry 200 that houses
imaging volumes 210, 220. Id. ¶¶ 30–32, Fig. 1. Stretcher 100 is supported
by table 120. Id. Fig. 1.
Vaisburd teaches that stretcher 100 “sags” as the stretcher extends
toward gantry 200. Id. ¶ 33, Fig. 2. Vaisburd explains how the amount of
sag can be calculated for those parts of stretcher 100 that are currently in
volume 210 based on measurements of the actual amount of sag that takes
place in volume 220. Id. ¶¶ 33–36, Figs. 2–5.
[W]hen stretcher extension a is large enough that the edge of
stretcher 100 reaches imaging plane 222, the sag of
stretcher 100 at imaging plane 212 may be determined by
measuring the sag in the far imaging system at plane 222 and

4 These principles are familiar to any lay person that has walked to the end
of a diving board at a swimming pool.
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
11
calculating the sag in the near imaging system at plane 212. The
sag at imaging plane 212 may thus be determined again at
another extension of stretcher 100 further into volume 220, or
even beyond volume 220.
Id. ¶ 35.
Appellant’s argument that Vaisburd’s deflections are “actually
measured” is inconsistent with Vaisburd’s foregoing disclosure regarding
“calculating the sag.” Reply Br. 4, Vaisburd ¶ 35. In that regard, we note
that claim 1 “predicts” a deflection data based on a “present horizontal
position” of the table top. Thus, both Vaisburd and Appellant’s system start
with a known “present horizontal position” of the table top and then
determine, calculate, estimate, or “predict” the amount of sag or deflection at
a second horizontal position.
Furthermore, Appellant’s argument that the deflection delta depends
on the height of the base (Reply Br. 4) cannot be reconciled with well-
known scientific principles. The rotational moment at the base is a function
of the weight and offset distance of the weight from the base. Such
rotational moment does not change as base 508 is raised or lowered unless
one considers that Appellant’s base 508 also deflects with Appellant’s table
top 510, which is something that is not taught in Appellant’s Specification.
See generally Spec.5 The Examiner correctly interprets “deflection delta” as
a value that is independent of the vertical position of either the tabletop or
the “base” on which the tabletop rests. Ans. 6. Appellant presents neither
evidence nor persuasive technical reasoning to contravene the Examiner’s
determination in this regard.

5 In the absence of any teaching to the contrary, we assume that Appellant’s
base 508 does not bend or deflect under the weight of the subject.
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
12
Appellant’s argument based on the meaning of the word “predict,”
does not withstand scrutiny. Both Appellant’s invention and Vaisburd
calculate a “sag” or “deflection delta” based on a set of numerical values. If
the calculation is not performed in real time, but is performed based on a set
of hypothetical conditions that might occur in the future, such a calculation
might be considered to be a “prediction.” However, we tend to agree with
the Examiner that Appellant’s use of the terms “predict” and “prediction”
appears to be anomalous in the context of the subject matter before us.
Claim 1 requires a weight of a subject determined from an electrical signal
from a vertical drive system. Claims App. Claim 1 bespeaks of a current,
real time calculation, not a hypothetical future situation. Thus, Appellant’s
use of the term “predict/prediction” is essentially synonymous and can be
used interchangeably with terms such as calculate, determine, compute,
estimate, etc. Under the circumstances and the context in which the term
“predict” appears, we discern no patentable distinction between Appellant’s
“predicted” deflection delta and Vaisburd’s calculated “sag” value.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine the Examiner’s
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded. We
sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claims 1–3, 5–9, 21,
and 24.
Unpatentability of Claims 22 and 25
Over Vaisburd, Aulbach, Nasuta, and Bruns
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of these claims
apart from arguments previously presented with respect to claim 1 that we
determine to be unpersuasive. Appeal Br. 7. We sustain the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-006394
Application 14/787,329
13
unpatentability rejection of these claims for the same reasons previously
expressed with respect to claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (failure to
separately argue claims constitutes a waiver of arguments for separate
patentability).
Unpatentability of Claims 23 and 26
Over Vaisburd, Aulbach, Nasuta, Bruns,
Farooqui, NXT® Motor Internals, and Bernstein
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of these claims
apart from arguments previously presented with respect to claim 1 that we
determine to be unpersuasive. Appeal Br. 7. We sustain the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of these claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
§ Reference(s)/Bases Aff’d Rev’d
23, 26 112 Written Description 23, 26
1-3, 5-9,
21, 24
103 Vaisburd, Aulbach, Nasuta 1-3, 5-9,
21, 24

22, 25 103 Vaisburd, Aulbach, Nasuta,
Bruns
22, 25
23, 26 103
Vaisburd, Aulbach, Nasuta,
Bruns, Farooqui, NXT
Motor Internals, Bernstein
23, 26

Overall
Outcome
1-3, 5-9
21-26

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