ELEKTA AB (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2020

2020000420 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 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.
14/851,527 09/11/2015 John Allen 12475.0066-00000 1017
22852 7590 12/04/2020
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
MATTHEWS, CHRISTINE HOPKINS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2020 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN ALLEN and COLIN WINFIELD
____________

Appeal 2020-000420
Application 14/851,527
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, 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 1–8 and 10–21, which are all the
pending claims. Appeal Br. 1; Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing
was held on October 22, 2020.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Elekta AB,
a corporation of Sweden. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000420
Application 14/851,527

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a radiotherapy apparatus,
such as an image-guided radiotherapy where a medical imaging system is
integrated with the radiotherapy system, to provide treatment to a patient,
where a target portion of the patient is off-axis from a central axis. See, e.g.,
Appeal Br. 5–7. Claims 1, 8, and 11 are independent. Claim 8, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
8. A radiotherapy apparatus for treating a target portion of a
patient comprising:
a rotatable gantry rotating around a rotation axis;
a source arranged to emit a beam of therapeutic radiation
along a central axis and toward the rotation axis, wherein the
rotation of the gantry causes the source to rotate and to direct
the beam towards the target portion from a plurality of
rotational positions, wherein the target portion is located in an
off-axis position that is offset with respect to the central axis
and located in the off-axis position for at least one rotational
position;
an imaging device for the therapeutic radiation, the
imaging device being movable relative to the source; and
a control unit arranged to coordinate the rotation of the
source and the movement of the imaging device to ensure that
the imaging device remains in the beam, as the source rotates to
different rotational positions and directs the beam towards the
target portion in the off-axis position.

Appeal 2020-000420
Application 14/851,527

3
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Mackie US 6,345,114 B1 Feb. 5, 2002
Clark US 2003/0086526 A1 May 8, 2003

REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 8 and 11–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Clark. Final Act. 3–5.
II. Claims 1–7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Clark and Mackie. Id. at 6–10.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Rejections I and II are deficient based on
asserted shortcomings of Clark—namely, (1) that Clark does not disclose
treating a target in an off-axis position such that its source would not direct
the beam toward the target portion in the off-axis position and (2) that Clark
does not control its portal imaging device to continually maintain the device
in alignment with the beam. Appeal Br. 13–18; see id. at 18–22; Reply
Br. 4–7. After careful consideration of the record before us, Appellant’s
assertions do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the
disclosures of Clark, which are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
In this regard, with respect to (1) Clark’s disclosure of a source that
directs a beam toward a target in an off-axis position, the Examiner
Appeal 2020-000420
Application 14/851,527

4
identifies that at least a portion of Clark’s target 13 is located off-axis with
respect to the central axis, citing Figure 10 and Paragraph 24. Final Act. 3.
From a review of Clark’s Figure 10, we agree that the beam widens out,
even though it may be said to be “emitted along” the central axis (notably, as
is Appellant’s beam per claim 8), it is also “directed toward” a much larger
target area than just the axis itself. This appears to be the case whether the
“target” is considered to be object 13 (per the Examiner) or smaller object 12
(per Appellant). See, e.g., Clark, Figs. 1, 10. Either way, there is at least a
portion of that target in Clark that is “off-axis” and within the treatment path
of the beam, sufficient to meet this claim limitation.
Further, with respect to (2) Clark’s disclosure of controlling its portal
imaging device to continually remain in alignment with the beam, the
Examiner identifies Paragraph 52 (as opposed to Paragraph 59 regarding the
“warning” option discussed by Appellant), which sufficiently discloses
“coordination” of movement between the source and the imaging device to
maintain alignment. Ans. 4. Specifically, Clark’s Paragraph 52 discloses
that the control unit “receives position information from the portal imaging
device,” which “allows the motion of the gantry and other portions of the
treatment device to be coordinated with the movements of the portal
imaging device.” Clark ¶ 52 (emphasis added). Additionally, the treatment
unit “receives the portal imaging device position information,” which allows
the unit “to control operation of the portal imaging device in conjunction
with the treatment device.” Id. (emphasis added). From these disclosures,
we agree with the Examiner’s position that Clark’s controller is operable to
control the portal imaging device to remain in alignment with the beam,
sufficient to meet this claim limitation.
Appeal 2020-000420
Application 14/851,527

5
In short, as discussed above, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us
of a deficiency in the disclosures relied on from Clark. We note that any
other arguments not specifically addressed in detail herein have been
thoroughly considered by the panel but are not persuasive for the reasons
expressed in the Examiner’s Answer.
After careful consideration of all the evidence of record, Appellant’s
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejections, which we
thus sustain.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 11–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Clark.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Clark and Mackie.
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).

Appeal 2020-000420
Application 14/851,527

6
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
8, 11–21 102(a)(1) Clark 8, 11–21
1–7, 10 103 Clark, Mackie 1–7, 10
Overall
Outcome
  1–8,
10–21

AFFIRMED