Ex Parte Dong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

14002787 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017)

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.
14/002,787 09/03/2013 Shufang Dong 2011P00275WOUS 4117
24737 7590 09/01/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue THROOP, MYLES A
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUFANG DONG, TERRANCE JOSEPH NEMENZ,
PATRICK CUMPSON, JEREMY DAVID PETTINATO, and
SRIRAM RAJAGOPAL
Appeal 2016-003851
Application 14/002,7871
Technology Center 3600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—14, 30, and 32. Final Act. 2.2 Claim 31 stands
objected to. Claims 33 and 34 are allowed. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Koninklijke Philips N.V. is listed as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed May 13, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed September 10, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
January 14, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed March 7, 2016
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-003851
Application 14/002,787
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as directed to computed
tomography (CT) scanners and the like. Spec. 1. More specifically, the
appealed invention relates to a horizontal collision prevention unit that
prevents a subject support, such as a tabletop for a patient, from colliding
with an external object by disabling or stopping a drive motor. Id. at 6.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a subject support motion disable signal
indicative of at least one of a horizontal collision of a
horizontally moving tabletop of a subject support of an imaging
system with an object external to the subject support or a
decoupling of a horizontal motion drive system configured to
horizontally drive the tabletop in response to the horizontal
collision, wherein the subject support includes a base and the
tabletop, which is moveably mounted to [the] base; and
disabling, in response to receiving the subject support
motion disable signal, horizontal motion of the tabletop.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Muthuvelan (US 6,651,279 Bl; issued Nov. 25, 2003) and Menkedick et al.
(US 2009/0313758 Al; published Dec. 24, 2009). Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 2—4, 7—12, 30, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Muthuvelan, Menkedick, and Kuro et al.
(US 2010/0319128 Al; published Dec. 23, 2010). Final Act. 3-6.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Muthuvelan, Menkedick, Kuro, and Appellants’ Prior Art
Admissions. Final Act. 6—7.
2
Appeal 2016-003851
Application 14/002,787
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Muthuvelan, Menkedick, Kuro, and Zhu et al. (US 2010/0329414 Al;
published Dec. 30, 2010). Final Act. 7.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Muthuvelan, Menkedick, Kuro, and Green et al. (US 7,697,971 Bl;
issued Apr. 13, 2010). Final Act. 7—8.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 1
The Examiner finds that Muthuvelan discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1 with the following exception: “Muthuvelan does not
specifically teach stopping the [subject support] at the time of a collision, [as
claimed], but rather, before a collision occurs by stopping the apparatus
when a clearance less than a set minimum is reached.” Final Act. 3. The
Examiner reasons that “[i]f the minimum clearance distance is set at zero,
then the apparatus is configured to stop when a collision occurs. Id. The
Examiner further concludes that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would [have been]
motivated to set a clearance distance at zero in order to provide a larger
useable (or viewable) area of the table.” Ans. 2; see also id. at 2—3 (setting
forth additional explanation in support of this reasoning).
As a separate basis supporting the conclusion of obviousness, the
Examiner also finds Menkedick teaches a hospital bed having a movable
section capable of horizontal motion. Final Act. 3 (citing Menkedick 1489);
3
Appeal 2016-003851
Application 14/002,787
Ans. 3 (citing Menkedick Fig. 6). The hospital bed includes an obstacle
interference detection device having sensors for detecting collisions with an
obstruction. Id. In response to detecting the collision, a control system
stops the movement of the bed section’s motion. Id.', see also Menkedick
H 489—91. The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to combine the obstruction
detection system of Menkedick, which includes detection of a
collision, and the apparatus of Muthuvelan, [because] doing so
would simply be the use of [a] known technique (the obstruction
detection system of Menkedick, which includes detection of a
collision) to improve similar devices (the apparatus of
Muthuvelan) in the same way.
Final Act. 3.
The Examiner further reasons
One of ordinary skill would recognize that the goal of
Muthuvelan to prevent collisions, while optimum, is not always
possible. It is conceivable that a user might move while the
apparatus is in use, such that a patient[’]s arm or leg might
become wedged between the table and an MRI or CT scanner
machine. In such a case[,] the clearance distance of the apparatus
of Muthuvelan would have changed, without such changed data
being sent to the control system, with the dangerous result that a
patients limb could be pinched or crushed in the apparatus. It
would therefore be beneficial to use sensors on the Apparatus of
Muthuvelan, in addition to the concept of a clearance distance,
in order to prevent damage to the apparatus or to a user in the
case that the clearance distance concept fails to prevent a
collision.
Ans. 3.
4
Appeal 2016-003851
Application 14/002,787
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
/.
Appellants argue that “Muthuvelan and Menkedick are not
combinable to disclose claim 1 at least because [these references] discourage
and teach away from their combination.” App. Br. 3. According to
Appellants, “Muthuvelan teaches collision avoidance through a clearance
distanced whereas] Menkedick detects collisions.” Id. Appellants argue
that “Muthuvelan expressly states collisions are unsuitable:”
A collision may cause injury to the patient and/or the patient
positioning platform. Additionally, a collision may disrupt
system calibration and result in faulty measurements or image
scans. Thus, a need exists for a method and system to determine
a clearance distance to avoid a collision between a patient
positioning platform and the ground or another object.
Id. (citing Muthuvelan col. 1,11. 43—50).
Appellants argue
[because] the clearance distance avoids a collision, the clearance
distance has to be a nonzero distance, or a collision would not be
avoided. An ordinary artisan in this field would not modify a
system designed especially to avoid collisions to allow collisions
at least because this would allow the system and/or the object the
system collided with to be damaged and/or a person the system
collided with to be injured.
Id. at 3^4.
We question the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 2—3) that one of
ordinary skill would have been motivated to set intentionally the clearance
distance of Muthuvelan’s collision-avoidance system to zero and thereby,
allow a collision to occur. Regardless, though, Appellants do not persuade
us that the cited references teach away from each other.
5
Appeal 2016-003851
Application 14/002,787
The Examiner additionally sets forth an alternative theory that
Menkedick’s collision detection system is relied upon, not to replace
Muthuvelan’s collision avoidance system, but instead, to supplement the
collision avoidance system. Ans. 3. This rationale is reasonable because
providing backup safety systems or features was a well-known engineering
design practice conventionally employed to protect against the possibility of
a primary safety system’s failure.
Furthermore, it may be true that stopping movement after a collision
is detected may be inferior to avoiding the collision in the first place.
However, the relevant question is not whether Menkedick’s collision
detection system works as well as Muthuvelan’s collision avoidance system.
The relevant question is whether the use of a collision detection system as a
backup in the event of the failure of the collision avoidance system would
mitigate injury or damage relative to if no backup system was employed.
Appellants do not address this question. See App. Br.; see also Reply Br.
II.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s hypothetical—a patient’s arm or leg
getting wedged between the table and scanner machine—provides
insufficient motivation to combine the references. Reply Br. 4. Appellants
argue that “the patient’s body does not affect the clearance distance of
Muthuvelan” because “[n]one of the measured parameters change with the
location of the patient’s arm or leg.” Id.
This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons.
First, Appellants’ argument that the mis-position of the patient does
not affect Muthuvelan’s measured minimum safe distance (id.) supports the
Examiner’s reasoning. If Muthevelan’s system does not take the patient’s
6
Appeal 2016-003851
Application 14/002,787
position into account, a backup system that does sense collisions caused by
body parts, as opposed to equipment, would be all the more beneficial.
Second, even if we were to accept Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner’s specific example does not provide sufficient motivation to
combine, Appellants’ argument regarding the Examiner’s specific example,
still does not address the Examiner’s broader finding that collision
avoidance—for whatever reason—is not possible all of the time, and that
including Menkedick’s collision detection system as a backup safety feature
would mitigate damage or injury from collisions that do occur. Ans. 3.
III.
Appellants argue that Menkedick senses pressure, but not any
decoupling of the drive system. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 5. This argument is
unpersuasive. Claim 1 merely requires detecting either one of a collision or
a decoupling: “receiving a . . . signal indicative of at least one of a horizontal
collision . . . or a decoupling of a horizontal motion drive system.” As such,
it is immaterial whether Menkedick senses a decoupling as well as a
collision.
CONCLUSIONS
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We
therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim.
We likewise sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims
2—14, 30, and 32 over Muthuvelan, Menkedick, and the various additionally
cited prior art references. Appellants have not particularly pointed out errors
in the Examiner’s reasoning regarding the additional references’ teachings,
7
Appeal 2016-003851
Application 14/002,787
but merely argue that those claims are patentable for the same reasons
argued in relation to independent claim 1. App. Br. 4—5.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14, 30, and 32 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8