CARDIOINSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2021

2020004169 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 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.
15/171,735 06/02/2016 QINGGUO ZENG CIN-024531 US ORD 8704
134888 7590 03/22/2021
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
PENG, BO JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2021 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):
docketing@tarolli.com
rkline@tarolli.com
rs.patents.five@medtronic.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QINGGUO ZENG, PING JIA,
CHARULATHA RAMANATHAN, QING LOU,
RYAN BOKAN, and BRIAN P. GEORGE
Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, 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 and 3–13.2 See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cardioinsight
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 2 is cancelled, and claims 14–20 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 17, 20–
22 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system that provides geometry
information created using magnetic sensors to perform electrogram
reconstruction, in which electrograms are reconstructed onto an anatomical
envelope within a patient’s body, such as a cardiac surface. Spec. ¶ 17.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
an electromagnetic spatial measurement apparatus
comprising:
a moveable sensor to provide a sensor signal in response
to an electromagnetic field, the electromagnetic spatial
measurement apparatus providing first position data representing
multiple positions of the moveable sensor in a given coordinate
system;
a plurality of stationary sensors on an outer surface of a
patient’s body that each provides respective sensor signals in
response to the electromagnetic field, the electromagnetic spatial
measurement apparatus providing second position data based on
a position of each of the plurality of stationary sensors in the
given coordinate system;
a plurality of electrodes on the outer surface of the
patient’s body to sense electrical activity from locations on the
outer surface of the patient’s body; and
a processor configured to:
compute internal geometry data based on the first
position data, the internal geometry data representing a plurality
of locations in a three-dimensional space distributed across an
anatomical surface within the patient’s body;
compute electrode geometry data based on the
second position data and a known spatial relationship between
each of the plurality of stationary sensors and respective
electrodes of the plurality of electrodes, the electrode geometry
Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735

3
data representing the location of each of the plurality of
electrodes on the outer surface of the patient’s body; and
reconstruct cardiac electrical activity onto a
cardiac envelope based on the sensed electrical activity from the
outer surface of the patient’s body, the internal geometry data
and the electrode geometry data.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rudy ’004 US 6,772,004 B2 Aug. 3, 2004
Uchiyama US 2009/0227840 A1 Sept. 10, 2009
Rudy ’743 US 7,983,743 B2 July 19, 2011
Liu US 2012/0004540 A1 Jan. 5, 2012

REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Liu, Uchiyama,3 Rudy ’004, and/or Rudy ’743. Final Act.
3.

3 Although the heading for the rejection indicates that the rejection is based
on Liu, Uchiyama, and/or Rudy ’004 and/or Rudy ’743, the body of the
rejection indicates that the teachings of Uchiyama are optional. See Final
Act. 4–5. “It would have been prima facie obvious . . . to modify the
method/device of Liu ’540 alone or to include the features of Uchiyama ’840
in order to provide either relative or absolute position detection with respect
to each sensors.” Id. at 5.
Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735

4
OPINION
Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1 and 3–13 as a group.
Appeal Br. 15. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and claims
3–13 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Liu teaches many of the elements recited by
claim 1, including a movable sensor (field sensor 12), a plurality of
stationary sensors on an outer surface of a patient’s body (body surface
reference positioning electrode 17), and an electrode on the outer surface of
a patient’s body (SECG electrode 18). Final Act. 3–4 (citing Liu ¶¶ 92, 135,
Fig. 8).4 However, the Examiner finds “[t]he subject-matter of claim 1 . . .
differs from this known system [as disclosed by Liu] in that the electrode
geometry data representing the location of each of a plurality of electrodes
on an outer surface of the patient’s body, i.e. of more than one electrode.”
Id. at 4. The Examiner expands upon this finding, stating, Liu fails to
disclose
[a] plurality of electrodes to sense electrical activity from
locations distributed across the outer surface of the patient’s
body, wherein the processor is further configured to reconstruct
cardiac electrical activity onto a cardiac envelope based on the

4 The Examiner also finds Uchiyama discloses “comput[ing] electrode
geometry data based on the second position data and a known spatial
relationship between each of the plurality of stationary sensors and
respective electrodes of the plurality of electrodes (0034), the electrode
geometry data representing the location of each of the plurality of electrodes
on the outer surface of the patient’s body” and proposes to add these
teachings with those of Liu as an alternative rejection. Final Act. 5.
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings of fact regarding Liu and
Uchiyama or the modifications the Examiner proposes based on Liu alone or
in view of Uchiyama. See Appeal Br. 9–15.
Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735

5
sensed electrical activity from the outer surface of the patient’s
body, the internal geometry data and the electrode geometry data.
Id. at 4.
To address this deficiency in Liu’s disclosure, the Examiner finds
Rudy ’004 teaches a process of “reconstruct[ing] cardiac electrical activity
onto a cardiac envelope based on the sensed electrical activity from the outer
surface of the patient’s body, the internal geometry data and the electrode
geometry data.” Final Act. 6 (citing Rudy ’004, Figs. 11–16). The
Examiner finds Rudy ’743 also discloses this process. Id. (citing Rudy ’743,
Figs. 9, 11, 12). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, “to
include the features of Rudy ’004 and/or Rudy ’743 . . . because such
feature[s] provides better visualization and relevant diagnostic parameters
for a comprehensive diagnostic viewing.”5 Id. The Examiner also applies
an alternative rationale, based on the incorporation of the teachings of Rudy
’004 and Rudy ’743 by reference in Appellant’s Specification. See Final
Act. 5–6; Spec. ¶ 34.
Appellant contends “the rationale offered in the Final Office Action is
nothing more than a conclusory generalization that offers no articulated
reasoning as to why a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine
Rudy ’004 and/or Rudy ’743 with Liu and Uchiyama.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant argues “[t]he Final Office Action is void of any explanation which
features provide for better visualization nor which relevant diagnostic

5 The Examiner also applies a second rationale, based on the incorporation
of the teachings of Rudy ’004 and Rudy ’743 by reference in Appellant’s
Specification. See Final Act. 5–6; Spec. ¶ 34.
Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735

6
parameters would be provided for better comprehensive diagnostic
viewing.” Id. at 10. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s rationale is
merely a conclusion that the teachings of Liu, Uchiyama, Rudy ’004, and
Rudy ’743 could be combined, and this is insufficient to support a
determination that the system disclosed by claim 1 would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 11 (citing Personal Web
Technologies LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
In response, the Examiner finds Rudy ’004 teaches using
electrocardiograph imaging to provide better visualization and relevant
diagnostic parameters for comprehensive diagnostic viewing. Ans. 4 (citing
Rudy ’004, 2:15–20, 15:17–16:43). Similarly, the Examiner finds Rudy
’743 discloses using electrocardiograph imaging to help physicians identify
patients at risk of sudden death and to provide specific diagnoses. Id. (citing
Rudy ’743, 1:35–39). Thus, according to the Examiner, the motivation for
the proposed combination comes directly from Rudy ’004 and Rudy ’743.
Id. The Examiner also finds the motivation to improve visualization of a
system such as Liu’s “is in the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art in [the] medical field when and if a possible
advantage [of] assisting and helping diagnos[e] a patient exists.” Id.
In reply, Appellant contends the portions of Rudy ’004 and Rudy ’743
cited by the Examiner in the Answer “provide reasons for utilizing the
described noninvasive electrophysiological imaging technique therein in
clinical and experimental applications,” but “these sections of Rudy ’004
and Rudy [‘743] in general do not provide a motivation for providing a user
with additional information.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends the portions
of Rudy ’004 and Rudy ’743 cited by the Examiner provide “no rationale for
Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735

7
combining the invasive electrophysiological approach of Liu with the
noninvasive electrophysiological imaging technique of Rudy ’004.” Id. at 3;
see also Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant also contends the Examiner does not
identify evidence that any motivation for modifying Liu’s system to include
information from more than one surface electrode was “common general
knowledge.” Id. at 3–4. Additionally, Appellant contends that if the stated
motivation (providing better visualization and relevant diagnostic parameters
for a comprehensive diagnostic viewing) was common knowledge at the
time the claimed invention was made, this motivation is too general to
support the specific modification to Liu’s system proposed by the Examiner.
Id. at 4.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s
rationale for modifying Liu’s system based on the teachings of Rudy ’004
and Rudy ’743. As correctly noted by Appellant, “Liu already provides an
electroanatomical image of a heart’s cavity.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Liu
¶¶ 64–75, 85–90, 122–136). As the system of Liu, before the modification
proposed by the Examiner, provides a three-dimensional electroanatomical
image of a heart’s cavity based on ECG signaling captured via a catheter
(see Liu ¶¶ 122–126), reconstructing cardiac electrical activity of a cardiac
envelope based on additional data (namely, sensed electrical activity from
electrodes on an outer surface of a patient’s body) would have been an
improvement of Liu’s system by adding information known to be used for
the same purpose, as taught by Rudy ’004 and Rudy ’743. Such a
modification would have been the mere application of a known technique to
a piece of prior art ready for the improvement. KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735

8
As for combining the invasive electrophysiological approach of Liu
with the noninvasive electrophysiological imaging technique of either of
Rudy ’004 and Rudy ’743, Appellant does not persuasively explain why the
fact that Rudy ’004 and Rudy ’743 teach noninvasive means of collecting
information is pertinent to the Examiner’s proposed modification to Liu’s
system. Indeed, as the Examiner points out, Liu already discloses the
combined use of invasive and noninvasive systems of data collection. See
Ans. 8; Liu ¶¶ 123–124. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner’s
“better visualization and relevant diagnostic parameters” reasoning for
modifying Liu’s system is supported by rational underpinnings.6
Appellant next argues that Liu teaches away from the Examiner’s
proposed modification. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant asserts that Liu provides
an electroanatomical image of a heart’s cavity, and, therefore, a person of
ordinary skill in the art “would have been discouraged from the doing the
same by incorporating the cardiac electrical activity reconstruction
techniques of Rudy ’004 and/or Rudy ’743 into Liu and Uchiyama.” Id.
According to Appellant, a person of ordinary skill in the art “upon reading
Liu would be discouraged from using the noninvasive imaging technique of
Rudy ’004 and/or Rudy ’743 for cardiac mapping as Liu has already
provided such mapping through direct measurements.” Reply Br. 4–5.

6 Appellant attacks the Examiner’s alternative stated rationale, which refers
to paragraph 34 of Appellant’s Specification, as being based on
impermissible hindsight. See Appeal Br. 12–13; Final Act. 5–6. As the
Examiner’s “better visualization and relevant diagnostic parameters”
rationale is adequate, we do not address Appellant’s arguments regarding the
alternative rationale.
Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735

9
This argument is unavailing because the fact that Liu provides an
electroanatomical image of a heart’s cavity with less information than is
used after the Examiner’s proposed modification does not discourage the
skilled artisan the use of additional information. In this regard, as evidenced
by its title “HUMAN CAVITY INNER WALL THREE-DIMENSIONAL
MAPPING METHOD, EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEM,” Liu’s object is to
provide three-dimensional mapping of a cavity in the human body.
Appellant identifies no teaching in Liu indicating that this object should be
achieved only without the use of data from external sensors such as
disclosed by Rudy ’004 and Rudy ’743. Accordingly, we do not agree that
Liu teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed modification.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1 and claims 3–13 depending therefrom.

CONCLUSION

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–13 is affirmed.

Appeal 2020-004169
Application 15/171,735

10
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–13 103 Liu, Uchiyama,
Rudy ’004, Rudy
’743
1, 3–13

AFFIRMED