Ex Parte Carbonera et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

12980732 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/980,732 12/29/2010
67337 7590 05/25/2016
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC (STJ)
4000 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carlos Carbonera
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
OG-046200US(065513-0313) 5226
EXAMINER
MOHAMMED, SHAHDEEP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
MN_IPMail@dykema.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARLOS CARBONERA, DANIEL R. STARKS, and
LEV A. KOYRAKH
Appeal2014-006728
Application 12/980,732 1
Technology Center 3700
Before NEALE. ABRAMS, MARK A. GEIER, and JASON W. MEL VIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MEL VIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify St. Jude Medical, Atrial Fibrilation Division, Inc., as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006728
Application 12/980,732
BACKGROUND
The claims are directed to a system visually rendering a catheter or
other elongate medical device in a body. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for visually rendering an elongate medical
device in a body, said device having a distal and a
proximal end, comprising:
an electronic control unit comprising a central processing
unit and an input/output interface configured to receive
signals generated by a plurality of position sensors on
said elongate medical device and to output said image
data to a display, said electronic control unit
configured to:
find a measured physical location for each of said
plurality of position sensors on said elongate medical
device within said body;
compute and apply a spline function to each of said
measured physical locations to determine a display
location for each position sensor;
interpolate between display locations of adjacent position
sensors to identify display locations for portions of
said elongate medical device between said adjacent
position sensors; and,
generate image data for display of an image of said
elongate medical device including said display
locations of said position sensors and said display
locations of said portions of said elongate medical
device between said adjacent position sensors.
2
Appeal2014-006728
Application 12/980,732
REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Olson '425 (US
2008/0221425 Al; pub. July 1, 2010) and Taniguchi (US
2004/0116775 Al; pub. June 17, 2004).
2. Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Olson '425, Taniguchi, and Olson '558
(US 2010/0168558 Al; pub. Sep. 11, 2008).
3. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Olson '425, Taniguchi, and Krueger (US
2008/0294034 Al; pub. Nov. 27, 2008).
4. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Olson '425, Taniguchi, and Beatty
(US 6,990,370 Bl; iss. Jan 24, 2006).
DISCUSSION
In rejecting the only two independent claims, 1 and 11, the Examiner
relies on Taniguchi for the limitation "electronic control unit configured to
... compute and apply a spline function to each of said measured physical
locations to determine a display location for each position sensor." Final
Act. 4--5. In particular, the Examiner finds that "Taniguchi teaches a spline
function (see par. [0419]) to determine a display location/corrects
measurement errors to accurately render an image of the catheter." Id. at 4;
Ans. 9 ("Taniguchi teaches using a spline function on the measured physical
location to calculate the display location.") (citing Taniguchi i-f 419).
3
Appeal2014-006728
Application 12/980,732
Appellants argue that the Examiner misconstrues Taniguchi's
teachings, in that Taniguchi uses a spline function to interpolate between
measured points to create display points, but does not adjust the position of
the measured points themselves for display. Appeal Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3-5.
The present Specification distinguishes between determining the
display location of the detected sensors (Spec. Fig. 3 (block 44 ), i-fi-1 20-29),
and interpolating between those display locations to fill in the remainder of
the curve (id. Fig. 3 (block 50), i1 31 ). Claims 1 and 11 make the same
distinction, by requiring a control unit configured to both "compute and
apply a spline function to" the measured locations to determine display
points and also "interpolate between" the display points. Appeal Br. 14, 16-
17 (Claims App.). We agree that the Examiner has identified teachings in
Taniguchi that map only to the latter functionality, not the former.
Taniguchi discusses a spline function only as used in "an interpolation
method" such as "to interpolate intermediate points." Taniguchi i1 419.
Figure 68 of Taniguchi depicts that such interpolated points are created
between points labeled "detected location of coil." And the Examiner has
identified nothing further in Taniguchi indicating that the detected locations
are modified for display. While Taniguchi refers to a "three-dimensional
model expressing the shape of an endoscope" (id. i1 419), there is no
indication that the model applies a spline function to modify the measured
locations into display locations, as claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 or 11, or that
of the dependent claims, which depend from claims 1 or 11.
4
Appeal2014-006728
Application 12/980,732
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5