Ex Parte Florent

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2019

14114215 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/114,215 10/27/2013 Raoul Florent
24737 7590 05/01/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P00442WOUS 3588
EXAMINER
PARK, PATRICIA JOO YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAOUL FLORENT
Appeal2018-001735
Application 14/ 114,215
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Raoul Florent ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9, 13-15, and 17-24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Koninklijke Philips N.V. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001735
Application 14/ 114,215
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A medical imaging device comprising:
an image acquisition device configured to acqmre an
image of a region of interest in a patient body;
an image segmentation device configured to automatically
identify anatomic or device structures within an acquired image
using image segmentation techniques, wherein the image
segmentation device is further configured to provide a plurality
of candidate images representing differently identified anatomic
or device structures;
a visualization device configured to visualize the plurality
of candidate images on a display; and
a separate user interface consisting of a separate selection
button wherein the imaging device is configured for manual
selection of one candidate image out of the plurality of candidate
images only by activating the selection button,
wherein the separate user interface consisting of the
selection button is spatially separate from the display and is
provided in addition to and separate from other input devices
configured for inputting data to a computing device and is also
connected to the computing device, and
wherein the separate user interface consisting of the
selection button is located at a patient table configured to support
the patient body for being easily handled during a medical
intervention by an intervening physician.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 2, 14, 15, and 172 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Moriya (US 2012/0176408 Al, published
July 12, 2012), Glynn (US 2009/0195514 Al, published Aug. 6,
2 The heading of this rejection includes claims 10 and 16. Final Act. 4.
However, claims 10 and 16 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 21-22 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-001735
Application 14/ 114,215
2009), and Takahashi (US 2006/0052684 Al, published Mar. 9,
2006).
2) Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Moriya, Glynn, Takahashi, and Ejima (US
2002/0008765 Al, published Jan. 24, 2002).
3) Claims 4, 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Moriya, Glynn, Takahashi, Kreeger (US
2011/0109650 Al, published May 12, 2011), and Kazama (US
2008/0159708 Al, published July 3, 2008).
4) Claims 6, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Moriya, Glynn, Takahashi, and Chin (US
2011/0200251 Al, published Aug. 18, 2001).
5) Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Moriya, Glynn, Takahashi, and Keller (US
5,353,354, issued Oct. 4, 1994).
6) Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Moriya, Glynn, Takahashi, Keller, and
Ubillos(US 2006/0071947 Al, published Apr. 6, 2006).
7) Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Moriya, Glynn, Takahashi, and Kukuk (US 2009/0279767 Al,
issued Nov. 12, 2009).
8) Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Moriya, Glynn, Takahashi, and Herman (US 2010/0185211 Al,
published July 22, 2010).
3
Appeal2018-001735
Application 14/ 114,215
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Mori ya discloses many of the limitations of
claim 1, including "a separate selection button," but does not disclose
"selection of one image by activating the selection button and its associated
details." Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds that "Glynn teaches a user
interface with a separate selection button wherein the imaging device is
configured for manual selection of one candidate image out of the plurality
of candidate images only by activating the selection button." Id. at 5 ( citing
Glynn, ,r,r 71, 82-83, 90-93). The Examiner also finds that Glynn discloses
the "user interface is spatially separate from the display" and "is located at a
patient table configured to support the patient body." Id. at 5---6 (citing
Glynn ,r,r 8, 23, 37-38, Fig. 4). The Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious to modify Moriya's apparatus "to include the teachings of
Glynn, as secondary input device[s] are well known in the art" and "such a
combination ... provides easy maneuvering while controlling the operation
of the system." Id. at 6 (citing Glynn, ,r 8). According to the Examiner,
Glynn does not disclose "a user interface consisting of a separate selection
button," but finds that Takahashi discloses "a foot switch or a selection
switch button for switching the images to be displayed." Id. ( citing
Takahashi, ,r 94). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify the Moriya and Glynn combination to include Takehashi's foot
switch so "the doctors can use both hands during the surgical operation" or
the selection button because "such a combination ... provides other[ s]
means to select when the doctor is using both hands during the surgical
operation." Id. at 6-7 (citing Takahashi ,r 94).
4
Appeal2018-001735
Application 14/ 114,215
Appellant contends that neither Moriya nor Glynn disclose "a separate
user interface consisting of a separate selection button." Appeal Br. 9-10.
Appellant asserts that "the Moriya input unit has many buttons, namely, the
Moriya 'input unit 303 is composed of a keyboard, a mouse and the like for
inputting various kinds of information.'" Id. at 9 ( citing Mori ya, ,r 73).
Appellant asserts that Glynn's "touchpad controller has many buttons,
including a play button 614 ... where selecting the play button 614 'toggles
between playing and pausing the display of the currently playing video
loop/stream" and therefore, "any selection button in Glynn is part of a user
interface that includes many button[ s] and thus does not consist of a separate
selection button." Id. at 10 (citing Glynn ,r 93).
The Examiner responds that the rejection relies on "Takahashi for
teaching a switch button for switching the images to be displayed." Ans. 18
( citing Takahashi, ,r 94). The Examiner further explains that "it is clear that
Takahashi teaches a user interface consisting of a selection switch button or
a foot switch, thus disclos[ing] a single button or switch for switching
images" and asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Glynn's
separate user interface "to consist of a foot switch or selection switching
button as it provides convenient means to make selection using foot pedal
or a selection button as the doctors can use both hands during the surgical
operation." Id. at 19.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts the combination of Mori ya,
Glynn, and Takahashi, as explained by the Examiner in the Answer, is
improper because the "Moriya and Glynn devices will no longer be operable
for their intended purposes as a result of depriving the Moriya keyboard or
mouse or the Glynn control panel ... of other buttons that are likely to be
5
Appeal2018-001735
Application 14/ 114,215
essential for operation of the Mori ya and Glynn device" and, further, a
person of ordinary skill in the art "would not modify the keyboard, mouse or
control panel of Mori ya and Glynn to eliminate needed buttons and be left
with only a single button." Reply Br. 6. For the following reasons, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
We agree with Appellant that neither Moriya nor Glynn disclose "a
separate user interface consisting of a selection button" because each
discloses multiple input devices or buttons at the user interface. See Moriya
,r 73 ("The input unit 303 is composed of a keyboard, a mouse and the
like."); Glynn, Figs. 4---6. The buttons illustrated in Glynn's Figures 5 and 6
provide a multiplicity of different functions. See Glynn ,r,r 66-84. As the
Examiner explains in the Answer, the rejection modifies Glynn's multi-
button user interface with Takehashi's foot pedal or selection button in order
to satisfy the claim limitation "a separate user interface consisting of a
separate selection button." However, as Appellant correctly notes in the
Reply Brief, the Examiner has not adequately explained how Glynn's multi-
button user interface would function as disclosed with only Takahashi' s foot
switch or selection button. In addition, although the Examiner provides a
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would use Takehashi's teachings
in Glynn, the Examiner has not adequately explained why one of ordinary
skill in the art would also eliminate all of the other input buttons in Glynn's
user interface. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 because
it is not supported by a rational underpinning. See Trivascular, Inc. v.
Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(A determination of
obviousness cannot be reached where the record lacks '"explanation as to
6
Appeal2018-001735
Application 14/ 114,215
ho11, or 11,hy the references would be cornbined to produce the claimed
invention.") ( emphasis added)( citations omitted)}
Claims 2 and 14 depend from c1aim L Appeal Br. 19, 21 (Claims
App.). \Ve do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 14 for the same
reasons. The Examiner rejects independent claim 15 based on substantially
the same findings and reasoning as claim L Final /\ct. 7----10. We, thus. do
~, ...._, ., ·'
not sustain the rejection of claim 15 and claim 17 which depends from claim
15 for the same reasons.
Rejections 2-----8
Claims 3-----9, 13, and 18-----24 a11 depend from either claim 1 or claim 15.
Appea1 Br. 18-----24 (Claims App.). In rejecting these claims1 the Examiner
relies on the combination of l\,,foriya. Glvnn, and 'Takahashi discussed above .... - .,/ ,
,vith additional disclosure from Ejima, Kreeger, Kazama, Chin, Keller,
Ubilos, Kukuk, and Herman. Final Act 10----19. The Examiner does not rely
on the additional disclosure from these references to cure the deficiencies in
the combination of l\1oriya, Glynn, and Takahashi discussed above. Id.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of c1aims 3-----9, 13, and 18-----24.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-----9, 13-----15, and 17-----24 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7