Ex Parte Gattani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 15, 201511523136 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/523,136 09/18/2006 Abhishek Gattani 3772P041 4007 8791 7590 06/16/2015 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER PERROMAT, CARLOS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/16/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ABHISHEK GATTANI and SALMAAN HAMEED ____________ Appeal 2013-004711 Application 11/523,136 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 2–6, 8–12, 14–18, and 20–24, all of the claims pending in this Application. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 have been canceled. (App. Br. 5.) We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Stryker Corporation. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2013-004711 Application 11/523,136 2 EXEMPLARY CLAIM Claim 2 is exemplary and is reproduced below (emphasis added): 2. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by the computer, a plurality of user inputs specifying a plurality of locations of an endoscope corresponding to an anatomical feature of a body during an endoscopic medical procedure, wherein said plurality of locations are detected by optical fiber curvature sensors, wherein the curvature sensors vary in length and the lengths of the curvature sensors decrease with increasing proximity to a distal end of the endoscope; computing a plurality of points based on the user inputs; fitting, by the computer, a model volume to the plurality of points, wherein the model volume is a user-selectable implicit model; computing a physical parameter of the fitted model volume; and outputting the computed physical parameter to a user as a measure of a corresponding physical parameter of the anatomical feature. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 2–5, 8, 9, 14–17, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen,2 Brunkhart,3 and Danisch.4 (Final Act. 5–12.) The Examiner rejected claims 6, 10–12, 18, and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, Brunkhart, and Danisch, in combination with additional references. (Final Act. 12–17.) 2 Chen et al., US 2003/0029464 A1; published Feb. 13, 2003. 3 Brunkhart et al., US 2002/0158870 A1; published Oct. 31, 2002. 4 Danisch et al., US 6,563,107 B2; issued May 13, 2003. Appeal 2013-004711 Application 11/523,136 3 ISSUE The issue raised by Appellants’ contentions is: Did the Examiner err in finding Danisch teaches or suggests “wherein the curvature sensors vary in length and the lengths of the curvature sensors decrease with increasing proximity to a distal end of the endoscope,” as recited in claim 2? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 2–6). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue the combination of Chen, Brunkhart, and Danisch “fails to disclose receiving a plurality of user inputs detected by optical fiber curvature sensors, wherein the curvature sensors vary in length and the lengths of the curvature sensors decrease with increasing proximity to a distal end of the endoscope, as set forth in claim 2.” (App. Br. 10.) Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding this limitation “would be obvious in light of Danisch.” (Id.) Appellants further argue “Danisch is silent regarding an association between the flexibility of a rope and desired sensitivity of sensor regions.” (Id. at 11; Reply Br. 4–5.) We disagree with Appellants. Danisch teaches a tapered rope comprised of optical fibers with distal portions “as small and flexible as Appeal 2013-004711 Application 11/523,136 4 possible, which is often important in medical applications.” (Danisch 26:3– 17, Fig. 34a; see also Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 2–3.) The strands in such a rope can include light absorbing sensitive regions (i.e., “optical fiber curvature sensors”) that sense curvature in the fibers. (Danisch 21:36–60, 26:3–7, Figs. 21–23, 34a; Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 2–3.) Danisch further teaches varying the length of these sensitive regions depending on the desired sensitivity of the optical fibers, and “[t]his provides a corresponding span for the sampling of the average state of curvature of the sensing region of the optic fiber.” (Danisch 2:29–36; Ans. 3.) In light of these teachings, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to vary the length of the sensors along Danisch’s tapered rope, “with the shortest said length for the longest strands, those that reach the distal end, since they are the most flexible.” (Ans. 6.) Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 2, and we sustain that rejection. Regarding independent claim 14, Appellants do not raise separate patentability arguments from claim 2, nor do Appellants argue separate patentability for claims 3–5, 8, 9, 15–17, 20, and 21, which depend either directly or indirectly from claim 2 or claim 14. (App. Br. 12.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3–5, 8, 9, 14–17, 20, and 21. Appellants argue that the additional references cited in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 6, 10–12, 18, and 22–24 do not cure the deficiencies of Danisch argued with respect to claim 2. (App. Br. 13–14.) Because we find Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 2 Appeal 2013-004711 Application 11/523,136 5 unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 6, 10–12, 18, and 22–24. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–6, 8–12, 14–18, and 20–24 are 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)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation