Ex Parte Gattani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2015

11523136 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2015)

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