VOLCANO CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2021

2021000907 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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.
14/596,785 01/14/2015 Bradley S. Matsubara 2014P01995US01 9788
24737 7590 07/28/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
COOK, CHRISTOPHER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2021 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 BRADLEY S. MATSUBARA and JOHN UNSER
Appeal 2021-000907
Application 14/596,785
Technology Center 3700
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 11, 13–18, and 24–30. 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) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-000907
Application 14/596,785

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for improving a hemodialysis vascular access
site, the method comprising:
providing an intravascular instrument comprising an
elongate tubular member, a proximal coil coupled to the elongate
tubular member, a tip coil and a combination sensor tip having a
housing, the tip coil and the proximal coil being different coils,
wherein the housing comprises a proximal end coupled to the tip
coil, wherein the combination sensor tip comprises a pressure
sensor and an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) transducer,
wherein the pressure sensor and the IVUS transducer are
disposed within the housing, wherein the combination sensor tip
is disposed distally of the proximal coil and the tip coil;
inserting the intravascular instrument into a vessel
proximal to the hemodialysis vascular access site with guidance
from imaging provided by the IVUS transducer in the
combination sensor tip at the distal end of the intravascular
instrument;
making a measurement with the pressure sensor at the
distal end of the intravascular instrument; and
restricting flow through the hemodialysis vascular access
site until the measurement from the pressure sensor at the distal
end of the intravascular instrument obtains a predetermined
value.
REJECTION(S)
Claims 1, 3–5, 11, 13–18 and 24–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable in view of Porter (US 2006/0064159 A1,
published Mar. 23, 2006); Corl (US 6,106,476, issued Aug. 22, 2000);
Terumi Higuchi et al. (Intravascular Ultrasound Imaging Before and After
Angioplasty for Stenosis of Arteriovenous Fistulae in Haemodialysis
Appeal 2021-000907
Application 14/596,785

3
Patients, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 16:151–155, 2001); and
Maschke (US 2007/0066890 A1; published Mar. 22, 2007).
OPINION
Claims 1, 3–5, 11, 13–18, & 25–30
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner determines Porter teaches an
intravascular instrument (catheter) that satisfies much of claim 1, but the
Examiner cites Corl for its teachings of a catheter having a pressure sensor
assembly, among other things. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Porter ¶¶ 16, 21, 85,
188–196; Corl, 3:45–4:10, Figs. 3, 13–15). The Examiner also cites Higuchi
for its teachings of a catheter with IVUS imaging for both qualitative and
quantitative assessments (id. at 5 (citing Higuchi pp. 151–152, Fig. 1)), and
the Examiner cites Maschke for its teachings of a combination sensor tip that
includes both an IVUS transducer and a pressure sensor (id. (citing Maschke
¶¶ 10, 16, 32, 51, code (57))).
Citing Corl’s Figures 2 and 3, Appellant argues that Corl does not
disclose the claimed combination sensor tip disposed distally of the proximal
coil and the tip coil, as claimed. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds,
and we agree, that Appellant’s argument does not address the substance of
the Examiner’s rejection, as the Examiner cites Corl’s Figures 13 and 14 as
teaching a sensor assembly distal to both the proximal coil and tip coil.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 3–4. We agree with the Examiner that Corl teaches a
sensor assembly distal to the proximal coil and tip coil, as claimed. Corl,
Figs. 13, 14.
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in relying on Maschke as
teaching the pressure sensor and IVUS transducer disposed within the
housing, as claimed. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, Maschke
Appeal 2021-000907
Application 14/596,785

4
teaches that its pressure sensor is located in the tip while its IVUS sensor is
separately located outside of the tip. Appeal Br. 11–12 (citing Maschke
¶¶ 32, 51); Reply Br. 2–3.
The Examiner responds, and we agree, that Maschke teaches both the
pressure sensor and the IVUS sensor as an integral unit within its distal tip.
Ans. 4–5 (citing Maschke ¶¶ 10, 16, 32, 41). Appellant’s arguments turn on
an unduly limited interpretation of what Maschke calls its tip; we agree with
the Examiner that Maschke teaches or at least suggests that its sensors are in
the catheter’s tip as an integral unit consistent with claim 1. See Spec. p. 9
(describing pressure sensor 404 and ultrasound transducer “near” the distal
end of combination sensor tip 400), Fig. 4 (depicting combination sensor tip
400 with separation between pressure sensor 404 and ultrasound transducer
501). Among other things, paragraph 39 of Maschke states that “[i]n the
area of the catheter tip 8 the lumen is transparent for OCT and IVUS,”
indicating that the sensors are in fact in or near the tip and thus within the
scope of claim 1. Maschke ¶ 39; accord id. at ¶ 32 (“An IVUS sensor 6 and
an OCT sensor 7 are integrated into the front part of the catheter. . . . At the
catheter tip 8 is located a light exit window for the OCT sensor 7.”).
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in
light of each of Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we agree
with the Examiner and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well
as the rejection of claims 3–5, 11, 13–18 and 25–30, which Appellant does
not argue separately.
Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 11 and further recites “wherein the
pressure sensor is oriented in a cantilevered position within the housing
Appeal 2021-000907
Application 14/596,785

5
having walls that form a lumen, and wherein the pressure sensor projects
into the lumen of the housing without contacting the walls of the housing.”
The Examiner cites Corl as teaching a sensor assembly that is cantilevered
over a cutout in the housing. Final Act. 6 (citing Corl, 6:44–65); Ans. 6–7
(citing Corl, 6:44–65, Figs. 6, 14).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in relying on Corl as teaching a
pressure sensor assembly in a cantilevered position. Appeal Br. 12–13.
According to Appellant, Corl’s pressure sensor assembly is not cantilevered
because Corl discloses the assembly as being “flush” with the outer surface
of the housing, which Appellant interprets to mean that the assembly is in
contact with the housing.
Appellant’s Figure 4 depicts a pressure sensor in the cantilevered
position.

As described in Specification states that:
pressure sensor 404 is oriented in a cantilevered position within
a sensor housing 403. For example, the sensor housing 403
preferrably includes a lumen surrounded by housing walls.
When in a cantilevered position, the pressure sensor 404
Appeal 2021-000907
Application 14/596,785

6
projects into the lumen of the sensor housing 403 without
contacting the walls of the sensor housing 403.”
Spec. pp. 8–9. This is consistent with the language of claim 24 that
requires that a pressure sensor in the cantilevered position within the
housing walls without contacting the walls of the housing.
Copied below is the Examiner’s annotated version of part of Corl’s
Figure 14.

Corl’s Figure 14 depicts pressure sensor 76 spaced within a cutout in tip
housing 122 with an arrow added by the Examiner labeled “cantilevered
position.” We agree with the Examiner that Corl’s Figure 14 depicts
pressure sensor 76 in a cantilevered position in that Figure 14 depicts the
pressure sensor positioned without contacting the walls of tip housing 122.
See Ans. 6–7. We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Corl’s
description of an embodiment having a pressure sensor “flush” with the
housing suggests that the pressure sensor would be in contact with the
housing wall (Appeal Br. 12–13); Figure 14, for example, depicts the top of
pressure 76 in the same horizontal plane as, and thus flush with, the top of
tip housing 122 even though the two parts are not in contact. We also
disagree with Appellant’s argument regarding the cover depicted in Corl’s
Figure 15 (Reply Br. 3–4), as that argument does not substantively address
Appeal 2021-000907
Application 14/596,785

7
Figure 14’s depiction of a pressure sensor positioned without contacting the
walls of the tip housing.
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24
in light of each of Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we
agree with the Examiner and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 11, 13–18 and 24–30 as
being unpatentable in view of Porter, Corl, Higuchi, and Maschke is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 11,
13–18,
24–30
103 Porter, Corl,
Higuchi, Maschke
1, 3–5, 11,
13–18,
24–30

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