Ex Parte Gagnon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

11912678 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111912,678 10/05/2009 Daniel Gagnon
38107 7590 03/02/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. 0. Box 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2005P01206WOUS 1594
EXAMINER
PENG, BO JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3768
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL GAGNON and HENNING BRAESS
Appeal2013-006279
Application 11/912,678
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and JAMES J. MAYBERRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Daniel Gagnon and Henning Braess (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-9, 12-15, 19, and 20. 1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claims 1, 4, 12, and 19 are pending. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter with the key disputed
limitations italicized.
1 Claims 10, 11, 16-18, 21, and 22 have been canceled. Appeal Br., Claims App.
Appeal2013-006279
Application 11/912,678
1. An apparatus for detecting radiation counts from a region
of interest of a subject, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of radiation detectors which acquire the radiation
counts;
a monitor which monitors periodic biological cycles of the
subject;
a trigger point detector which detects a time of a common
reference point in each of the monitored periodic biological cycles of
the subject;
a sequence selector which selects a sequence of nominal
sampling segments, each nominal segment spanning a plurality of the
periodic biological cycles, each nominal sampling segment having a
selected duration, a start time and an end time; and
one or more processors programmed to:
synchronize the start time of each nominal sampling
segment with the detected reference point in a first of the
periodic biological cycles and the stop time with the detected
reference point in a subsequent one of the periodic biological
cycles.
Appeal Br. 23, Claims App.
REJECTIONS 2
I. Claims 1-3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarkewicz (US 4,585,008, iss. Apr. 29, 1986), Muehllehner (US
6,462,341 Bl, iss. Oct. 8, 2002), Shimoni (US 4,865,043, iss. Sept. 12, 1989), and
Ryals (US 5,431,161, iss. July 11, 1995). Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.
II. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jarkewicz, Shimoni, and Ryals. 3 Final Act. 7; Ans. 7.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and
second paragraphs. Ans. 16.
3 Claims 10, 16, and 17 were canceled and are therefore not properly rejected. See
Amendment dated August 28, 2012.
2
Appeal2013-006279
Application 11/912,678
III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Jarkewicz, Shimoni, Jones (US 2002/0163994 Al, iss. Nov. 7, 2002), and Qi (List
Mode Reconstruction for Pet with Motion Compensation: A Simulation Study,
Dept. of Functional Imaging, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA). Final Act. 10; Ans. 10.
IV. Claims 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jarkewicz, Muehllehner, Shimoni, Ryals, Jones, and Qi. Final Act. 13; Ans.
12.
V. Claims 12-15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarkewicz, Shimoni, Ryals, Jones, and Qi. 4 Final Act. 15; Ans.
14.
OPINION
Re} ections I and IV
Regarding Rejection I, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Ryals teaches
each nominal sampling segment spanning a plurality of the periodic biological
cycles, and "synchroniz[ing] the start time of each nominal sampling segment with
the detected reference point in a first of the periodic biological cycles and the stop
time with the detected reference point in a subsequent one of the periodic
biological cycles." Final Act. 6 (citing Ryals, Fig. 17B).
Appellants contend that Ryals discloses storing acquired data in a ring buffer
1620, and that its Figure 17B concerns "how to tell where in the ring buffer one
finds the data collected in each R-R interval." Appeal Br. 10. Appellants explain
that Ryals is directed to cardiac imaging "in which data is collected in R-R
4 Claims 21 and 22 were canceled and are therefore not properly rejected. See
Amendment dated August 28, 2012.
3
Appeal2013-006279
Application 11/912,678
segments" that are divided into plural sub-segments corresponding to different
cardiac phases, so that "[ n ]one of the references individually or in combination
teach or fairly suggest synchronizing the start time of each of the segments with a
detected reference point in a first periodic biological cycle and a stop time with the
detected reference point in a subsequent biological cycle." Id.
The Examiner responds that Ryals teaches ring buffers 1720, which are well
known in the computer processing art and have a starting point 1724 and an ending
point 1722, and are capable of storing "approximately 2 to 4 R-R intervals worth of
event data." Ans. 22 (emphasis removed).
Appellants reply that Ryals temporarily stores cardiac data in a ring buffer
so that bad data can be deleted before analysis rather than "backed out of the
reconstruction." Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend that Ryals' "technique for
eliminating bad data prospectively rather than backing it out retrospectively" is not
the subject matter of claim 1, which "calls for the sequence of nominal sampling
segments to span a plurality of periodic biological cycles." Id.
Appellants discuss two kinds of "segments" in the Specification - the 16
segments that make up a heartbeat or a biological/cardiac cycle (Spec., p. 2, 11. 3-
6), and nominal sampling segments that contain "an integral number of
biological/cardiac cycles" (Spec. p. 2, 11. 18-21 ). Thus, Appellants' claimed
nominal sampling segment includes multiple heartbeats or biological/cardiac
cycles. The claim recites a processor programmed to synchronize the start and
stop time of each nominal sampling segment using a detected reference point
common to each biological/cardiac cycle. Although the Examiner finds such
synchronization in Ryals' Figure 17B (Final Act. 6, Ans. 22), the Examiner fails to
explain how Ryals, which never explicitly mentions synchronization, performs
such a process. Lacking an explicit finding or a more detailed explanation of
4
Appeal2013-006279
Application 11/912,678
Ryals' detected reference point and synchronization based thereon, we are
persuaded by Appellants' argument that Ryals' lacks such disclosure.
While Ryals may combine multiple R-R cycles in its ring buffer temporarily
to eliminate bad data prospectively, the Examiner has not explained how this
disclosure, even when combined with the disclosures of Jarkewicz, Muehllehner,
and Shimoni, would teach or suggest selecting nominal sampling segments
including plural biological cycles (R-R segments) and then using a detected
common reference point of the biological cycles to synchronize the start and stop
time of each nominal sampling segment. We therefore do not sustain the Rejection
I. Regarding Rejection IV, claims 5-8 depend from claim 1, and the Examiner
does not find that Jones or Qi disclose the claimed synchronization. We therefore
do not sustain Rejection IV for the same reason.
Rejection III
Independent claim 4 recites a scaling processor for scaling each adjusted
sampling segment based on a difference in duration between the corresponding
nominal and adjusted sampling periods.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Jones discloses a scalar value for on-line
normalization for scaling total projection bin values to correct for variations in
detector efficiency and dead time (Jones i-fi-123, 49-49), and Qi discloses
reconstruction algorithms that compensate for motion using "specific observed
time intervals (page 414, see the Poisson process with rate function, with N events
observed from time T0 to T1)." Final Act. 12.
Appellants argue that Jones discloses an error correction factor (based on
detector characteristics) that "represents a correction for variable detector
efficiency or normalization and dead-time." Appeal Br. 15-16. While Jones
scales to account for varying detector sensitivity, it does not scale based on a
5
Appeal2013-006279
Application 11/912,678
difference in duration between corresponding nominal and adjusted sampling
segments. Appeal Br. 16-17. Appellants then argue that, while Qi includes a time
element, it is directed to scaling for patient movement (Appeal Br. 17), such that
even combined Jones and Qi do not teach or suggest scaling based on a difference
in duration between the corresponding nominal and adjusted sampling periods.
The Examiner responds that "[ r ]adiation counts are stored in each sampling
segments. So scaling number of radiation counts reads on scaling each adjusted
sampling segments." Ans. 37. Appellants reply that claim 4 recites scaling based
on duration differences, and neither Jones nor Qi recite scaling based on duration.
Reply Br. 6. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not explained how
the combined teachings of Jones and Qi contemplate scaling based on a difference
in duration between corresponding nominal and adjusted sampling periods. We
therefore do no sustain Rejection III.
Rejection V - Claims 12-15
Independent claim 12 recites the nominal sampling segments spanning a
non-integer plural number of biological/cardiac cycles, synchronizing the start and
stop times of the nominal sampling segments with detected common reference
points, and scaling each adjusted nominal sampling segment.
As set forth above regarding Rejections I and IV, the Examiner has not
explained how Ryals, even when combined with the disclosures of Jarkewicz and
Shimoni, would teach or suggest selecting nominal sampling segments including
plural biological cycles, and then using a detected common reference point of the
biological cycles to synchronize the start and stop time of each nominal sampling
segment. For at least this reason, we do not sustain Rejection V.
6
Appeal2013-006279
Application 11/912,678
Re} ection II
Independent claim 19 recites an apparatus for dynamically imaging a region
of interest. Appellants argue that the claimed dynamic imaging shmvs time
evolution, whereas Jarkewicz, Shimoni, and Ryals disclose gated imaging and
acquire data over a long period of time such that time evolution information "is
lost by being averaged into a single image of one sub segment or phase of a cardiac
cycle.~' Appeal Br. 20----21.
The Examiner responds that "dynamic imaging~' is recited in the preamble as
intended use) and therefore is not entitled to patentable weight Ans. 44 (citing In
re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67 (CCPA 1976)). Appellants do not refute this contention.
Appellants also argue that claim 19 recites a mechanism that "detects
radiation counts emanating from the subject" and divides the radiation counts into
"a plurality of sampling segrnents, each sampling segment comprising a plural
integer number of biological cycles.~' Appeal Br. 9; Claims App. Appellants
contend that the sampling segments of Jarkewicz and Ryals include only fractions
of a biological/cardiac cycle, rather than plural biological cycles. Id.
\Ve are not persuaded that using Ryals' ring buffer to store multiple
biological/cardiac cycles, even if some of the cycles are removed before analysis,
does not teach dividing radiation counts into sm:np1ing segments including plural
biological/cardiac cycles as claimed. \Ve therefore sustain the rejection of claim
19.
Rejection II - Clainz 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 19, and recites a processor that scales "a
number of radiation counts detected in each sarnpling segment in accordance with
relative time durations of the sampling segment." The Examiner relies on Qi and
Jones for this teaching. Final Act. 15. For the reasons set forth above regarding
7
Appeal2013-006279
Application 11/912,678
Rejection III, the Examiner has not explained how the combined teachings of Jones
and Qi contemplate scaling based on a relative time durations. We therefore do not
sustain the rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarkewicz, Muehllehner, Shimoni, and Ryals.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarkewicz, Shimoni, and Ryals.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarkewicz, Shimoni, Jones, and Qi.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarkewicz, Muehllehner, Shimoni, Ryals, Jones, and Qi.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 12-15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Jarkewicz, Shimoni, Ryals, Jones, and Qi.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8