ALLMENDINGER, Thomas et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2020

14294521 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 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.
14/294,521 06/03/2014 Thomas ALLMENDINGER 32860-002266-US 8720
30596 7590 02/03/2020
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O.BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
KREMER, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2020 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
jhill@hdp.com
siemensgroup@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS ALLMENDINGER, THILO HANNEMANN,
ANDRE HENNING, JAVIER PENA, and FLORIAN PFANNER
Appeal 2019-001621
Application 14/294,521
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, 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 1–4, 6, 9, and 11–15. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001621
Application 14/294,521
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a method and a medical diagnostic or
therapeutic device for determining the motion of an examination region.”
Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A method to determine motion of an examination region
of a patient using a flat antenna arrangement having a plurality
of individually actuatable transmitters and a plurality of
individually readable receivers therein, the method comprising:
transmitting a temporal sequence of radar signals in a
direction of the examination region by actuating the plurality of
individually actuatable transmitters according to a control signal;
receiving radar signals reflected by the examination region
using the plurality of receivers;
demodulating the received radar signals by at least one I/Q
demodulator, thereby converting each of the received radar
signals into a respective I component and a respective Q
component;
assigning each of the received radar signals to a respective
transmitter which transmitted the radar signals received, by
correlating a position of each of the received signals to a position
of the transmitter which transmitted the signals; and
adjusting values of the I and Q components obtained from
the at least one I/Q demodulator to retrievably stored temporal
series of I and Q components which correspond to known
motions of the examination region, thereby obtaining the
determined motion of the examination region of the patient.
Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–4, 6, 9, and 11–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite.
Appeal 2019-001621
Application 14/294,521
3
II. Claims 1–4, 6, 9, and 11–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.

OPINION
Rejection I–Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that the last paragraph of claim 1 renders
the claim indefinite, stating “[i]t appears that the expression ‘adjusting
values’ is suggesting that the values of the obtained I and Q components are
undergoing some change, but what this change is and how this change
relates to the retrievably stored temporal series of I and Q components are
not clear.” Final Act. 9. Additionally, the Examiner takes the position that
it is unclear how the adjustment of the I and Q results in obtaining the
determined motion of the examination region of the patient. Id.
Appellant argues that claim 1 is not indefinite when read in light of
the Specification and explains that I and Q components are parameters that
involve certain characteristics, such as mean frequency, width of a frequency
distribution, and volume of a moving examination region. Appeal Br. 22–23
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 69, 71). Appellant states, “Model data may be created by
training a model.” Id. at 22 n.24. Appellant then asserts that the measured I
and Q components “can be adjusted to the model data in the form of stored I
and Q components” and that stored model data relates to known motions of
the examination region. Id. at 23 (citing Spec. ¶ 69) (emphasis added).
Appellant next discusses how the model data is created. See id. at 23–25
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 72–74). Based on this discussion, Appellant concludes, “the
specification provides [a] very specific description of the generation and
Appeal 2019-001621
Application 14/294,521
4
usage of model data such that the claimed subject matter is not indefinite to
one of skill in the art.” Id. at 25.
Appellant also proposes two interpretations of the term “adjusting” as
it is recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellant states, “one of skill in the art,
upon reading the specification, would understand what the change
(adjustment) is and how the change relates to the retrievably stored temporal
series of I and Q components (model data).” Appeal Br. 26. Additionally,
Appellant states, “according to the specification, the obtained I and Q
components are adjusted by a comparison or correlation to known motions
of an examination region (i.e., model data obtained from a plurality of
patients).” Id. at 25. Thus, Appellant appears to contend that the recited
adjustment is either of (i) a change, or (ii) a comparison or correlation.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that Appellant’s
argument focuses merely on the process used to create a training model, not
the adjustment to the I and Q data recited in the last paragraph of claim 1.
Ans. 19–21.
In reply, Appellant reiterates how the model data is created and that
“the ‘known motions’ recited in the claims relate to model data that is
retrievably stored.” Reply Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also restates
that the I and Q components are adjusted by changing them (id. at 9) and
that the I and Q components are adjusted by a comparison to model data. Id.
at 8.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s arguments do not
address the rejection, which states that the step of adjusting the I and Q
components appears to require a change of these quantities, but it is unclear
what this change would be. See Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2019-001621
Application 14/294,521
5
Paragraph 41 of the Specification discloses that “model data is based
on a trained model of the examination region.” Paragraphs 69 and 70 of the
Specification explain that I and Q components undergo adjustment and that
the adjustment may be “to” model data, i.e., model data undergoes an
adjustment. Paragraphs 71–74 of the Specification further explain that
model data can be adjusted and how model data is created via a
mathematical process. Thus, these portions of the Specification imply that
the meaning of the term “adjusting” is the same as “changing,” but only in
the context of model data. In other words, the Specification describes
changing model data. See Spec. ¶ 71. Appellant’s explanation of the
process applied to model data does not clarify the adjustment process
applied to the I and Q components obtained from the I/Q demodulator,
which components, Appellant states, are different from model data.2
Even assuming for the sake of argument that, in light of the
Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “adjusting”
is “changing,” as the Examiner points out (see Final Act. 9), this
interpretation does not make sense in the context of the last paragraph of
claim 1, which requires “adjusting the values of the I and Q components . . .
to retrievably stored temporal series of I and Q components which
correspond to known motions of the examination region.” It is unclear how
changing the I and Q components, which are demodulated from received
radar signals, to a retrievably stored temporal series, would result in the next
step in claim 1 (namely, “obtaining the determined motion of the
examination region of the patient”).

2 Appellant states that the I and Q components are compared to model data.
See Appeal Br. 25; Reply Br. 8. Thus, according to Appellant, the terms “I
and Q components” and “model data” do not refer to the same thing.
Appeal 2019-001621
Application 14/294,521
6
Appellant’s proposed interpretation of “adjusting,” in claim 1, as “a
comparison or correlation to known motions of an examination region (i.e.,
model data obtained from a plurality of patients)” (Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis
omitted) is plausible in the context of the definition of model data set forth
in paragraph 41 of the Specification. In other words, substituting the words
“comparing” or “correlating” for “adjusting,” such that the last paragraph of
claim 1 requires Q and I data to be compared/correlated to a retrievably
stored temporal series of I and Q components, may result in a grammatically
correct statement. However, claim 1 uses the word “adjusting,” and the
words “adjusting” and “comparing” (and/or “correlating”) are not synonyms.
Further, Appellant’s Specification does not provide sufficient guidance to
reasonably interpret the term “adjusting” in claim 1 in a way similar to the
acts of “comparing” or “correlating.” This lack of guidance is reflected by
Appellant’s differing proposed interpretations of the term “adjusting.” See
Appeal Br. 25, 26; Reply Br. 8, 9. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 1 is unclear. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2–4, 6, and 9 depending therefrom, as indefinite. Claim 11 recites
substantially similar language as discussed above regarding the rejection of
claim 1, and, for the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 11, and
associated dependent claims 12–15, as indefinite.
Rejection II—Written Description
The Examiner’s rejection for failure to comply with the written
description requirement focuses on the same unclear language in claims 1
and 11 discussed above. See Final Act. 2–10. A determination of whether
the scope of the claims is supported by Appellant’s original disclosure
requires first determining the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claims. As no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to the terms in
Appeal 2019-001621
Application 14/294,521
7
these claims, we do not reach the issue of whether claims 1 and 11, and
associated dependent claims 2–4, 6, 9, 12–15, fail to comply with the written
description requirement.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the claims is affirmed.
More specifically, we affirm Rejection I and do not reach Rejection II.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed Not Reached
1–4, 6, 9,
11–15
112(b) Indefiniteness 1–4, 6, 9,
11–15

1–4, 6, 9,
11–15
112(a) Written
Description
1–4, 6, 9, 11–
15
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 9,
11–15

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