Ex Parte Gagnon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 9, 2018

12195637 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/195,637 08/21/2008 Daniel GAGNON
38107 7590 04/11/2018
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.
2006P02400 USOl 8888
EXAMINER
PENG, BO JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/11/2018 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 DANIEL GAGNON, MICHAEL A. MORICH,
DOUGLAS M. BLAKELEY, ROBERT L. ZAHN,
and KEVIN M. NIEMAN 1
Appeal2017-005492
Application 12/195,637
Technology Center 3700
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JAMES A. WORTH, and
TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a hybrid
imaging system, which have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-005492
Application 12/195,637
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention "relates to combined magnetic resonance (MR) and
positron emission tomography (PET) imaging systems." Spec. 1: 10-11.
"Hybrid imaging systems enable medical personnel to combine the
advantages of the constituent modalities to acquire more useful information
about the patient." Id. at 1: 17-19.
However, construction of a hybrid imaging system including a
magnetic resonance (MR) scanner and ... PET[] is challenging.
In a typical magnetic resonance imaging facility, a magnetic
resonance scanner is located in a specially designed radio
frequency isolation space created by a surrounding Faraday
cage-type radio frequency shield. The radio frequency isolation
space protects the sensitive magnetic resonance detection
system from extraneous radio frequency interference.
Id. at 2:3-9.
"Problematically, the electronics for radiation detectors used in PET
scanners ... typically generate high levels of radio frequency interference."
Id. at 2:12-14. The Specification states that
concern about radio frequency interference produced by the
electronics 80, 82 of the second modality imaging system 12
has been a substantial bar to inclusion of such second modality
imaging system 12 in the same radio frequency isolation room
16 as the magnetic resonance scanner 10. However, radio
frequency interference can be reduced or eliminated while still
keeping the electronics 80, 82 in the radio frequency isolation
room 16 with the magnetic resonance scanner 10.
Id. at 15:3-8.
The Specification states that most of the radio frequency interference
can be eliminated by modifying the electronics of the second modality (e.g.,
PET) imaging system in one of several ways: (1) not using switching power
2
Appeal2017-005492
Application 12/195,637
supplies; (2) not including dynamic memory and/or synchronously clocked
digital electronics; or (3) putting the electronics in a quiet mode during
magnetic resonance imaging. Id. at 15:8 to 16:2. Other features that reduce
radio frequency interference include using electronics with clocking
frequencies that are not at the magnetic resonance frequency or including
notch filters to block generation of radio frequency interference at the
magnetic resonance frequency. Id. at 16:3-13.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-18, and 34--3 6 are on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A hybrid imaging system comprising:
a radio frequency isolation space defined by a Faraday cage;
a magnetic resonance scanner disposed in the radio frequency
isolation space;
a second modality imaging system disposed in the same radio
frequency isolation space as the magnetic resonance scanner, the second
modality imaging system being one of the group consisting of a positron
emission tomography (PET) scanner and a gamma camera, the magnetic
resonance scanner and the second modality imaging system being physically
separate units that are spaced apart by a gap; and
second modality electronics associated with radiation detectors of the
second modality imaging system, the second modality electronics configured
to reduce radio frequency interference generated by the second modality
electronics at one or more magnetic resonance frequencies of the magnetic
resonance scanner by at least one of:
the second modality electronics being clocked at a frequency
selected to suppress generation of radio frequency interference at the
one or more magnetic resonance frequencies of the magnetic
resonance scanner,
the second modality electronics being notch filtered to block
generation of radio frequency interference at the one or more
magnetic resonance frequencies of the magnetic resonance scanner;
3
Appeal2017-005492
Application 12/195,637
wherein no radio frequency shield is disposed between the magnetic
resonance scanner and the second modality imaging system.
Appeal Br. 35-36 (Claims App'x).
Claims 11, 13, and 14 are also independent and are similar to claim 1
except that claim 11 requires that "the second modality electronics do not
include any switching power supplies," claim 13 requires that "the second
modality electronics include unclocked static memory and do not include
clocked dynamic memory," and claim 14 requires that "the second modality
electronics are configured to be selectively placed into quiet mode with
clocks for synchronous circuitry and dynamic memory disabled and power
supplies for radiation detectors turned off." Id. at 37-39. Each of claims 11,
13, and 14 also state that no radio frequency shield is disposed between the
magnetic resonance scanner and the second modality imaging system. Id.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 10, 15, 16, 18, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious based on Schwaiger, 2 Shaw 2005, 3 Farraday cage, 4 Kraemer, 5
Shao, 6 and Krieg 7 (Ans. 3);
2 Schwaiger et al., MR-PET: Combining Function, Anatomy, and More,
Special Molecular Imaging, Sept. 2005, pp. 25-30.
3 Shaw et al., Commissioning and Testing of Split Coil MRI system for
Combined PET-MR, 13 Proc. Int'l Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 407 (2005).
4 everything2.com/title/Faraday+cage, Mar. 23, 2002.
5 Kraemer et al., US 5,394,873, issued Mar. 7, 1995.
6 Shao et al., Simultaneous PET and MR imaging, 42 Phys. Med. Biol.
1965-1970 (1997).
7 Krieg et al., US 2006/0251312 Al, published Nov. 9, 2006.
4
Appeal2017-005492
Application 12/195,637
Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Schwaiger,
Shaw 2005, Farraday cage, Kraemer, Shao, Krieg, Hammer, 8 Lising, 9 and
Mumm 1° (Ans. 11 );
Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Schwaiger,
Shaw 2005, Farraday cage, Kraemer, Shao, Krieg, and Shaw 2002 11 (Ans.
13)
Claim 7 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on
Schwaiger, Shaw 2005, Farraday cage, Kraemer, Shao, Krieg, and Meyer12
(Ans. 14);
Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Schwaiger,
Shaw 2005, Farraday cage, Kraemer, Shao, Krieg, Meyer, and Schwall 13
(Ans. 15-16);
Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on
Schwaiger, Shaw 2005, Farraday cage, Kraemer, Shao, Krieg, and
Engelmann 14 (Ans. 16-17);
8 Hammer, US 4,939,464, issued July 3, 1990.
9 Lising et al., New limit on the D coefficient in polarized neutron decay, 62
Phys. Rev. C 055501-1 to 055501-11 (2000).
10 Mumm et al., eMIT: An apparatus to test time reversal invariance in
polarized neutron decay, 75 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 5343-5355 (2004).
11 Shaw et al., Genetic Algorithms for MRI magnet Design, 12 IEEE Trans.
Appl. Supercond. 733-736 (2002).
12 Meyer et al., US 6,302,579 Bl, issued Oct. 16, 2001.
13 Schwall, MRI-Superconductivity in the Marketplace, MAG-23 IEEE
Trans. Mag. 1287-1293 (1987).
14 Engelmann, US 4,219,872, issued Aug. 26, 1980.
5
Appeal2017-005492
Application 12/195,637
Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Schwaiger,
Shaw 2005, Farraday cage, Kraemer, Shao, Krieg, McClure, 15 and Berkel 16
(Ans. 21);
Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Schwaiger,
Shaw 2005, Farraday cage, Kraemer, Shao, Krieg, McClure, Berkel, and
Engelmann (Ans. 25); and
Claims 17 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on
Schwaiger, Shaw 2005, Farraday cage, Kraemer, Shao, Krieg, DeSilets, 17
and/or Meyer (Ans. 31 ).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner has rejected all of the claims on appeal as obvious
based on Schwaiger, Shaw 2005, Farraday cage, Kraemer, Shao, and Krieg,
by themselves or combined with one or more of Hammer, Lising, and
Mumm, Shaw 2002, Meyer, Schwall, Engelmann, McClure, Berkel, or
DeSilets. The same issue is dispositive for all of the rejections.
The Examiner finds, among other things, that Schwaiger teaches that
MRI and PET ... can be built and put together right next to
[]each other while maintaining one bed (fig. IA) ... space[d]
apart by a gap; wherein no radio frequency shield is disposed
between the magnetic resonance scanner and the second
modality imaging system (fig. IA).
Ans. 4.
15 McClure, US 5,493,537, issued Feb. 20, 1996.
16 Berkel et al., Applications of Asynchronous Circuits, 87 Proc. IEEE 223-
233 (1999).
17 DeSilets et al., US 2003/0078489 Al, published Apr. 24, 2003.
6
Appeal2017-005492
Application I2/195,637
The Examiner finds that Shaw 2005 "teaches combining PET and
MRI by integrating a split magnetics and building PET in the center of the
split magnetics." Id. The Examiner concludes that, "[h Jenee it would be
obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would choose any[] one of the
design[s] for combining PET and MRI system[s]." Id.
Appellants argue that Schwaiger' s Figure I A does not support the
Examiner's finding that the reference discloses MRI and PET scanners
without a radio frequency shield between them. Appellants argue that "[t]he
skilled artisan would readily understand that Schwaiger Fig. IA is a high-
level diagrammatic representation of a possible hybrid MR/PET system
geometry, configured similarly to axially shifted hybrid PET/CT systems."
Appeal Br. I 8. Appellants argue that "Fig. IA omits numerous features that
would be included in a typical implementation design of a hybrid MR/PET
with physically separate units that are spaced apart by a gap. The omission
of these features in Fig. IA is not disclosure of an MR/PET system that
omits these features." Id.
7
Appeal2017-005492
Application I2/195,637
We agree with Appellants that a preponderance of the evidence does
not support the Examiner's finding that Schwaiger discloses a hybrid system
with separate MR and PET units without a radio frequency shield between
them. The Examiner relies on Schwaiger' s Figure I A, which is reproduced
below:
Figure IA shows a "[p ]ossible geometry of a combined MR-PET
scanner," with "[t]he two devices ... aligned with an axial shift-sequential
imaging." Schwaiger 27. Figure IA shows an MR scanner and a PET
scanner, spaced apart by a gap, but it does not identify any of the component
parts of either scanner. We agree with Appellants that the lack of an
identified radio frequency shield in the figure does not reasonably support a
conclusion that the hybrid system lacks such a shield.
The Examiner responded to Appellants' argument on this point as
follows: "Appellant has failed to show if the RF shield is essential and if the
RF shield is not used, then the design of Schwaiger would fail to work. The
8
Appeal2017-005492
Application 12/195,637
office has shown by evidence as shown by Schwaiger that this RF shield
feature is not in the design." Ans. 36.
However, for the reasons discussed above, we disagree that the
evidence provided by Schwaiger supports a finding that the hybrid MR/PET
system illustrated in Figure 1 A lacks a radio frequency shield. In addition,
as the Examiner acknowledged, the Office bears the initial burden of
showing unpatentability. The case for unpatentability must be supported by
a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response [to the prima facie case], patentability is determined on the
totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.").
The Examiner also reasons that "appellant has failed to indicate which
structure [ s] that is claimed in these claims were used so that the RF shielding
in the gap is not necessary." Ans. 36. However, Appellants' Specification
lays out several different ways to minimize radio frequency interference
from a PET scanner. Spec. 14--16. The Specification states that
[u]sing one or more of these approaches (such as omitting
clocked memory, omitting switching power supplies, using
electronics operating at frequencies selected to avoid producing
radio frequency interference at the magnetic resonance
frequency or frequencies, employing suitable notch filters, and
so forth) the electronics 80, 82 can be included in the same
radio frequency isolated room 16 as the magnetic resonance
scanner 10. In the arrangement of FIGURES 1-5, no radio
frequency shield is disposed between the magnetic resonance
scanner 10 and the second modality imaging system 12.
Spec. 16: 19--25 (emphasis added). The independent claims on appeal each
recite one or more of those modifications to the second modality electronics.
9
Appeal2017-005492
Application 12/195,637
Although the rejections on appeal are based on references in addition
to Schwaiger, the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in the other
references that would make up for the deficiency in Schwaiger discussed
above. We therefore reverse all of the rejections on appeal.
REVERSED
10