Ex Parte Graw

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

10383280 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/383,280 03/07/2003 Ansgar Graw
7590 08/28/2018
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood A venue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
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.
2003P03416 US 1853
EXAMINER
PARK, PATRICIA JOO YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 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 ANSGAR GRAW
Appeal2017-008422
Application 10/383,280
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 8, 10-14, and 21-23, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. App. Br. 1. Claims 1-7 were withdrawn
as being directed to a non-elected species. See Response to Restriction
Requirement dated March 8, 2004. Claim 9 was canceled. See Amendment
dated September 22, 2004. Claims 15-18 were canceled. See Amendment
dated July 24, 2012. Claims 19 and 20 were also canceled. See Amendment
1 According to Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is Siemens Medical
Solutions USA, Inc." App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008422
Application 10/383,280
dated April 11, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the
reasons explained below, we REVERSE the Examiner's rejections.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
The disclosed subject matter "relates to diagnostic imaging
equipment, and more particularly relates to those parts of diagnostic imaging
equipment that physically support the patient while the patient is undergoing
an imaging study. In its most immediate sense, the invention relates to a
patient handling system for use with nuclear medicine imaging equipment."
Spec. 1 :4--8. System claim 8 and method claim 22 are independent. Claim 8
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below:
8. A nuclear radiation imaging system comprising:
a patient support having a patient chair, a base, and a joint
connected at one end to the base and at the other end to the patient
chair, said patient chair having a relatively vertical loading
position from which a patient is loaded into said patient chair,
and a relatively horizontal imaging position for imaging of a
patient loaded into said patient chair, wherein said patient chair
pivots about said joint from said relatively vertical loading
position to said relatively horizontal imaging position after said
patient has been loaded into said patient chair from said relatively
vertical loading position;
a pair of nuclear radiation detectors mounted at right
angles to each other; and
a gantry including a base unit and an armature, a first end
of the armature being rotationally mounted to the base unit such
that the armature may rotate with respect to the base unit, a
2 Application No 10/383,280 has previously been the subject of a Board
Decision (Appeal No. 2014-006747, dated April 20, 2015) wherein the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 9, and 15-18 were reversed. This
Application was also the subject of an earlier Board Decision (Appeal No.
2010-004742, dated June 8, 2012) wherein the Examiner's rejections of
claims 8 and 10-18 were affirmed.
2
Appeal2017-008422
Application 10/383,280
second end of the armature being mounted to said pair of nuclear
radiation detectors such that said pair of nuclear detectors may
rotate with respect to the armature, and said base unit being
mounted to said base and being movable toward and away from
said patient chair;
said pair of nuclear radiation detectors being movably
mounted to the gantry such that the pair of nuclear radiation
detectors may be moved from a patient loading position enabling
a patient to be loaded into said patient chair while in said
relatively vertical loading position, wherein said patient loading
position of said pair of nuclear radiation detectors does not
enable imaging of a patient, to a patient imaging position
enabling a patient to be imaged by said pair of nuclear radiation
detectors,
wherein said patient imaging position of said pair of
nuclear radiation detectors does not enable loading of a patient
into said patient chair from said relatively vertical loading
position.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Yoshida US 5,008,624
Kulpa et al. US 5,249,838
Fleury et al. US 5,594,251
Maor US 5,811,813
Cabral et al. US 6,217,214 Bl
Gagnon US 6,455,856 B 1
Damadian et al. US 6,934,574 Bl
(hereinafter "Damadian '574")
Damadian et al. US 7,123,008 Bl
(hereinafter "Damadian '008")
REJECTIONS
Apr. 16, 1991
Oct. 5, 1993
Jan. 14, 1997
Sept. 22, 1998
Apr. 17, 2001
Sept. 24, 2002
Aug.23,2005
Oct. 17, 2006
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury, and Gagnon.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury, Gagnon, and Yoshida.
3
Appeal2017-008422
Application 10/383,280
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury, Gagnon, Damadian '574,
and Kulpa.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury, Gagnon, and Cabral. 3
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 8 and 21
as unpatentable over Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury, and Gagnon
Independent claim 8 includes the limitation, "a gantry including a
base unit and an armature ... and said base unit being mounted to said base
and being movable toward and away from said patient chair." The Examiner
acknowledges, "Maor, Damadian ['008,] and Fleury do not explicitly teach
that [the] base unit of the gantry is mounted to the base of the patient support
and being movable toward and away from the patient chair." Final Act. 4--5.
Regarding the matter of the base unit and the patient chair both having a
common foundation, the Examiner contends that this "is well known in the
art of imaging system[s]." Final Act. 5; Ans. 12. Regarding the claim
recitation that the gantry's base unit is mounted so as to be "movable toward
and away from said patient chair," the Examiner relies on Gagnon for such
teachings. Final Act. 5; Ans. 12. On this latter point, the Examiner states
that Gagnon "discloses [an] imaging system that is movably mounted with
respect to the gantry system with detectors and also movable with respect to
3 The Examiner only lists Maor, Damadian '008, and Cabral when initially
reciting this rejection, but the body of the rejection also employs the
teachings of Fleury and Gagnon. See Final Act. 7-10. Appellant
understands that claims 22 and 23 are rejected under a combination
involving five, not three, references. See App. Br. 11.
4
Appeal2017-008422
Application 10/383,280
the patient support." Final Act. 5; Ans. 12. The Examiner further addresses
Gagnon's "movable detectors 13" and (integral) "gantry 12 with patient
support system" concluding that it would have been obvious "to have an
armature as disclosed by Gagnon" combined with the above three references
"for the purpose of being able to provide one system for all." Final Act. 5;
see also Ans. 12.
Appellant addresses the teachings of Gagnon contending that
retraction and relocation of Gagnon's ''upper detector 13" "has no relevance
whatsoever to ... the gantry being movable toward and away from the
patient chair." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. More specifically, Appellant
contends that the Examiner's Answer has failed to show how the
combination of these references "would have resulted in the claimed subject
matter," and particularly the limitation of "said base unit being mounted to
said base and being movable toward and away from said patient chair."
Reply Br. 6. "Appellant respectfully submits that [the Examiner's] assertion
does not explain the proposed modification necessary to arrive at the
claimed subject matter" and that "[ o ]ver-generalizing the disclosure of
Gagnon ... does not explain how Maor/Damadian/Fleury . . . would have
been modified to arrive at the claimed subject matter." Reply Br. 6; see also
App. Br. 9.
As indicated above, the Examiner relies on Gagnon' s disclosure of a
movably mounted "imaging system," and "movable detectors 13," vis-a-vis
Gagnon's "gantry 12 with patient support system" as disclosing the
limitation of "a gantry including a base unit ... and said base unit being ...
movable toward and away from said patient chair." Final Act. 5; Ans. 12.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's focus on a movable imaging
5
Appeal2017-008422
Application 10/383,280
system and/or detectors with respect to Gagnon's integral gantry/patient
support (such that their relative positioning renders the above limitation
obvious) is problematic. See App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5-6. This is because the
limitation in question is directed instead to movement between a gantry's
base unit and a patient chair. Additionally, the Examiner's further focus on
the "armature as disclosed by Gagnon" likewise does not assist in the
Examiner's endeavor. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 12. Accordingly, there does
appear to be some "[ o ]ver-generalizing [ of] the disclosure of Gagnon" as
argued by Appellant. Reply Br. 6. Consequently, and based on the record
presented, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 21.
The rejection of claims 10 and 11 as unpatentable over
Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury, Gagnon, and Yoshida
Claim 10 depends from claim 8, and claim 11 depends from claim 10.
The Examiner relies on Yoshida for disclosing "a back," "a seat attached to
the back," and "a leg support" as required of claims 10 and 11. Final Act. 5.
Appellant states, "Yoshida does not disclose any of the features of claim 8
missing from the proposed combination of Maor, Damadian, Fleury and
Gagnon." App. Br. 10. Appellant's contention is persuasive. We do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 11 as being obvious over
Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury, Gagnon, and Yoshida for the reasons
previously expressed.
The rejection of claims 10 and 12-14 as unpatentable over
Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury, Gagnon, Damadian '574, and Kulpa
Each of claims 10 and 12-14 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claim 8 discussed above. The Examiner relies on the additional references
of Damadian '574 and Kulpa for disclosing various chair characteristics.
6
Appeal2017-008422
Application 10/383,280
Final Act. 6. The Examiner does not employ these references to cure the
defect noted above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 10 and 12-14 as being obvious over Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury,
Gagnon, Damadian '574, and Kulpa.
The rejection of claims 22 and 23 as unpatentable over
Maor, Damadian '008, Fleury, Gagnon and Cabral
Independent claim 22 ( and hence dependent claim 23) includes the
same limitation as discussed above, i.e., "said gantry including a base unit ..
. and said base unit being ... movable toward and away from said patient
chair." Similar to claim 8, the Examiner relies on Gagnon for such teachings
(i.e., the Examiner likewise addresses Gagnon's "imaging system,"
"movable detectors 13," "gantry 12 with patient support system," and "an
armature as disclosed by Gagnon" as rendering the above limitation
obvious). Final Act. 9. For the reasons previously expressed, we are not
persuaded Gagnon renders this "base unit being ... movable toward and
away from" limitation obvious. 4 Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 22 and 23 as being obvious over Maor,
Damadian '008, Fleury, Gagnon and Cabral.
4 We note, however, Cabral's teaching regarding the movement of scanner
table 50 with respect to C-arm 56 (a structure that acquires images by being
passed "over the anatomical area of interest" (Cabral 15:8-10)). More
specifically, we note Cabral's disclosure, "C-arm 56 moves along the X-axis all
the way to the left (as seen in FIG. 2) and patient table 50 all the way
forward (in the minus X direction seen in FIG. 2) and centered along the Y-
axis." Cabral 9:34--37.
7
Appeal2017-008422
Application 10/383,280
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 8, 10-14, and 21-23.
REVERSED
8