Ex Parte Cohen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2016

12650932 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/650,932 12/31/2009
67337 7590 06/10/2016
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC (STJ)
4000 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Amit Cohen
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.
OK-042000US
(065513-0229)
CONFIRMATION NO.
8176
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2016 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)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT COHEN, UZI EICHLER, and ALON IZMIRLI
Appeal2014-002042 1
Application 12/650,932
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to compensation of motion in a
moving organ using an internal reference sensor. Spec., para. 1.
1 The Appellants identify St. Jude Medical, Atrial Fibrillation Division, Inc.,
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002042
Application 12/650,932
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for displaying a moving region of interest located
within a body, comprising:
obtaining an image of the moving region of interest at a
first time;
tracking the motion of the moving region of interest over
time and generating, using a computer processing apparatus, a
motion compensation function;
determining, using a positioning system, a position and
orientation of an invasive medical device at a second time;
correcting, using the computer processing apparatus, the
determined position and orientation of the medical device using
the motion compensation function to thereby compensate for the
motion of the region of interest between the first time at which
the image of the region of interest was acquired and the second
time at which the position and orientation was determined; and . . . . .
supenmposmg, usmg a supenmposmg processor, a
representation of the medical device on the image in accordance
with the corrected position and orientation.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Strommer (US 2006/0058647 Al, pub. Mar. 16, 2006).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Strommer and Boese (US 2005/0251028 Al, pub. Nov. 10, 2005).
We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5 and 7-20
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 14, and 20 together as a
group. Appeal Br. 6. Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
2
Appeal2014-002042
Application 12/650,932
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Strommer's
playback of imaging does not disclose or suggest a motion compensation
function as claimed, because, according to Appellants, Strommer does not
compensate for motion of the region of interest between a first time, when
an image was obtained, and a second time, when the location of the device is
determined. Appeal Br. 5-7; see also Reply Br. 1--4.
Strommer discloses obtaining images of a region of interest in a
patient, such as a loop of images obtained during pull-back of a sensor.
Strommer, para. 66. Strommer discloses the cine-loop is played back in
synchronization with a "real-time organ timing signal of the inspected
organ." Strommer, para. 70. During a medical procedure, the front and rear
edges of a cardiac stent being placed are displayed as elements 128 and 130.
Strommer, para. 87. The located image of elements 128 and 130 are
superimposed on a playback of the previously-acquired cine-loop images.
Strommer, para. 88. As the stent is advanced during the medical procedure,
the position is shown superimposed over the playback image. Strommer,
para. 89. Strommer discloses a "motion compensation function" as claimed,
because during the operation "features 128, 130, 132, and 134, are
substantially stationary re la ti ve to the vibrating image of lumen 108."
Strommer, para. 90. See also Strommer, para. 94 (a GUI "includes a real-
time substantially stabilized representation of an MPS sensor of a catheter
located within the lumen of FIG. IA, superimposed on the lumen of FIG.
4B"). Fundamentally, the claimed invention and the aforementioned
portions of Strommer take two readings and superimpose one on top of the
other. Appellants have not identified, either in the specification or claims,
3
Appeal2014-002042
Application 12/650,932
any additional actions required to meet the recited the motion compensation
function.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that Strommer
does not disclose correcting the determined position and orientation of the
medical device using the motion compensation function, because, according
to Appellants, Strommer instead corrects a path, not a location of medical
device. Appeal Br. 8-9; see also Reply Br. 4--5. The argument is not
persuasive, because Strommer discloses correcting the determined position
of the stent, a medical device as claimed, whose image is superimposed on
the cine-loop playback by being stabilized. Strommer, para. 90.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Strommer does
not disclose the superimposing of a corrected position of a medical device,
on the basis that Strommer does not determine a corrected position of a
medical device, as previously argued. Appeal Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 5-
6. This is because we find Strommer discloses correction of a medical
device position using a motion compensation function, as we set forth above.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), as well as of dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, and 15-19 that are not
separately argued. Appeal Br. 6.
Claim 6
Appellants argue claim 6 on the basis that Boese fails to cure the
alleged deficiencies in Strommer argued with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br.
10-11; see also Reply Br. 7. We find no shortcomings in Strommer with
respect to claim 1, and thus sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
4
Appeal2014-002042
Application 12/650,932
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5