Ex Parte Guion-Johnson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2017

12406849 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2017)

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.
12/406,849 03/18/2009 Marie A. Guion-Johnson 4402.01US03 6194
135778 7590 12/12/2017
Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A.
4800 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH 8TH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100
EXAMINER
TRAN, THO Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2017 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):
efsuspto@ptslaw.com
rabe@ptslaw.com
becker @ptslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIE A. GUION-JOHNSON1
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 46—65. Notice of Appeal (filed Dec. 19, 2014).
Claims 1—24 and 66 are cancelled, and claims 25—45 are withdrawn. Appeal
Br. 36—39, 42 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Appellant’s representative appeared for oral hearing on November 8,
2017.
We AFFIRM.
1 AUM Cardiovascular, LLC is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 46, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
46. A system for detecting coronary artery disease
comprising:
at least one sensor configured to be placed over a
patient's chest to obtain data;
memory configured to store the data from the at least one
sensor; and
at least one processor configured to process the data to
obtain processed data, analyze the processed data
to detect a target signal form in a predetermined
frequency range, the target signal form in the
predetermined frequency range being indicative of
at least 50 percent to 99 percent stenosis of a
coronary artery, and provide an output related to a
presence or absence of at least 50 percent to 99
percent stenosis as a result or the analysis of the
processed data.
REJECTIONS
Claims 46—65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 57—60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for
lack of an adequate written description.
Claims 57—60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
for indefiniteness.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Palti
(US 2002/0151795 Al, pub. Oct. 17, 2002).
Claims 46—51, 54, 57—59, 64, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mohler ’289 (US 2003/0229289 Al,
pub. Dec. 11, 2003) and Mohler ’872 (US 6,053,872, iss. Apr. 25, 2000).
2
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Claims 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872, and Smith (US 7,346,174, iss.
Mar. 18, 2008).
Claims 55 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872, and Kim (US 2005/0157887
Al, pub. July 21, 2005).
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872, and Orten (US 2001/0014162 Al, pub. Aug. 16,
2001).
Claims 61—63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872, and Sandler (US 2004/0249293 Al, pub.
Dec. 9, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Claims 46—65 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner finds that claims 46—65 do not amount to significantly
more than an abstract idea of acquiring and processing data to detect a target
signal in a predetermined frequency range indicative of a degree of stenosis
without describing the target signal form. Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner
finds that the claimed target signal form is an abstract limitation because the
steps of acquiring data and providing an output are well-known, routine, and
conventional activities. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner also finds that additional
claim elements are mere instructions to implement the idea on a generic
computer that performs well-understood, routine, conventional computer
functions that do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible
application. Final Act. 6. According to the Examiner, certain dependent
claims recite known elements at a high level of generality. Ans. 5.
3
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Appellant argues that the claims are directed to a system or machine
and therefore are directed to statutory subject matter so that the Section 101
inquiry ends here. Appeal Br. 20—21; Reply Br. 4—5. This argument is not
persuasive because we consider not just the claim type and statutory class,
but we also look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (claim 2 recites nothing more than a computer readable medium
containing program instructions for executing the method of claim 3).
Regardless of what statutory category (“process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter,” 35 U.S.C. § 101) a
claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the
underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes. Here, it is
clear that the invention underlying both claims 2 and 3 is a
method for detecting credit card fraud, not a manufacture for
storing computer-readable information.
Id.; Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.),
687 F.3d 1266, 1276—77 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“a machine, system, medium, or
the like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for
purposes of patent eligibility); both cited with approval in Versata Dev. Gp.,
Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Alice Step One
We agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea of obtaining and analyzing/manipulating generic data to detect a target
signal form in a predetermined frequency range indicative of at least a 50
percent to 99 percent stenosis of a coronary artery. Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 4.
Collecting and analyzing information are abstract ideas, and presenting the
results of such abstract processes is abstract as well. Electric Power Gp.,
LLCv. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
4
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Appellant’s reliance on Research Corporation Technologies Inc. v.
Microsoft Corporation, 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010) is not persuasive.
In that case, the claims were directed to functional and palpable applications
in the field of computer technology with applications or improvements to
technologies in the marketplace. Id. The claimed inventive mask produced
higher quality halftone images while using less processor power and
memory space and required the manipulation of computer data structures
(pixels of a digital image and the mask) and output of a modified computer
data structure as halftoned images. Id. at 865; see also Bancorp Services,
L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279
(Fed. Cir. 2012); Ans. 4.
Here, the claims merely recite using a “sensor” “to obtain data,”
“memory configured to store the data from the at least one sensor,” and “at
least one processor configured to process the data to obtain processed data”
and then to “analyze the processed data to detect a target signal form in the
predetermined frequency range.” Appeal Br. 39 (Claims Appendix). The
dependent claims recite “a display coupled to the at least one processor”
(claim 47) “configured to display the output as an indication of a presence or
absence of the target signal form” (claim 48) in “a graphical representation
related to the processed data” (claim 49) as “a plot of harmonic magnitude
versus frequency” (claim 50) with “an identification of the target signal form
if the target signal form is detected” (claim 51), “a housing” for the sensor,
memory, and processor (claim 52), “a display” coupled to the housing (claim
53), “an acoustic sensor” (claim 54), “the predetermined frequency range is
less than about 100 Hz” (claim 55) or “between about 50 Hz and about 80
Hz” (claim 56), and a target signal form is “a bell-shaped curve” (claim 60).
5
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Embodying the abstract ideas of collecting, analyzing, and presenting
data in a particular environment, particularly one that uses generic sensors
and computers merely as well-known, conventional tools to implement these
abstract ideas does not evade the abstract idea inquiry. Electric Power Grp.,
830 F.3d at 1354; see Affinity Labs of Texas, LLCv. Amazon.com Inc., 838
F.3d 1266, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In addressing the first step of the section
101 inquiry, as applied to a computer-implemented invention, it is often
helpful to ask whether the claims are directed to ‘an improvement in the
functioning of a computer,’ or merely ‘adding conventional computer
components to well-known business practices.’” (quoting Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); In re TLI
Commc ’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d at 611 (physical components such as
a telephone and a server “merely provide a generic environment in which to
carry out the abstract idea”); see also Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt’l,
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014) (mere recitation of a generic computer or
instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer cannot transform an
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention, nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea to a particular technological environment sufficient); Ans. 4—5.
Alice Step Two
We are not persuaded that the claimed memory, sensor, and processor
provide specific applications or improvements to technologies to make the
claims patent-eligible, as Appellant asserts. Reply Br. 5. The use of a Fast
Fourier Transform of the data to present the data in a frequency domain for
plotting on a graph with magnitude is a well-known, conventional process.
See Spec. 132; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301 (implementing a mathematical
principle on a computer is not a patentable application).
6
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
As discussed above, the claims recite well-known, conventional
components and elements that perform standard functions without any
improvement to the computer functionality or sensor technology. Indeed,
Appellant discloses that coronary artery data 36 may be analyzed manually
by a clinician or automatically by stethoscope 14. Spec. 135. Any sensor
that is capable of detecting audible or inaudible vibrations associated with
hemodynamics or arterial elasticity in the coronary arteries, i.e., turbulent
flow, may be used. Id. 125. The signal is processed in an analog to digital
converter to produce digital data, which is then downsampled by one half
and filtered to remove frequencies outside a desired range. Id. 132.
Appellant also argues that the claims recite additional elements that
compare the data obtained from at least one sensor to transform the data to
processed data and to an output related to 50 percent to 99 percent stenosis.
Appeal Br. 22. This argument is not persuasive because processing of the
data is not claimed to involve a novel algorithm or other means to transform
the data into a new and useful form. Instead, data is processed “to obtain
processed data” that is analyzed to detect a target signal in a predetermined
frequency range. Essentially, Appellant has claimed that data captured by
known stethoscopes from a coronary artery and processed in known manner
to isolate that data and then to convert that data to a frequency domain can
be used to identify stenosis of a coronary artery if signals in predetermined
frequency ranges are identified. Appellant has not identified any innovative
technologies to implement this abstract idea in a form that is patent eligible.
See TLI Comms., 823 F.3d at 613 (the components must involve more than
performance of well understood, routine, and conventional activities that
were known previously to the industry.).
7
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Claims 57—60 For Lack of Written Description
Appellant discloses that a target signal form indicative of at least 50
percent to 99 percent stenosis of a coronary artery occurs when four criteria
are met: (1) sensed frequencies form a bell shaped curve within a spectral
region of interest of the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) data; (2) the onset of
the bell shaped curve at the lower frequency occurs where the upslope of the
curve rises “occurs substantially at or closely after 50 Hz”; (3) the
downslope of the bell shaped curve “ends substantially at or before 80 Hz,”
so the bell shaped curve is bounded by this spectral region; and (4) the FFT
peak of the bell curve that is bounded by this frequency region exceeds 2.5
units. Spec. 135.
Dependent claim 57 recites these features as “the target signal form
has a starting point at about a first predetermined frequency and an ending
point at about a second predetermined frequency.” Claim 58 recites that
“the target signal has a peak occurring at a third frequency between the first
and second predetermined frequencies.” Claim 59 recites that “the target
signal form comprises a curve.” Claim 60 recites that “the target signal form
comprises a bell-shaped curve.” Appeal Br. 41 (Claims Appendix).
We agree with Appellant that the Specification provides an adequate
written description of this claimed subject matter at paragraph 35 such that a
skilled artisan would recognize that Appellant invented this subject matter
and was in possession thereof at the time of the invention. Appellant points
to examples in the Specification that apply the four criteria to patient data to
determine whether a particular patient has a 50-99 percent stenosis. Appeal
Br. 16—17 (citing examples illustrated in Figures 4—8); see Spec. Tflf 48—54.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 57—60.
8
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Claims 57—60 For Indefiniteness
The Examiner finds that the use of the term “about” in claim 57 is a
relative term that renders claim 57 (and dependent claims 58—60) indefinite.
Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that a relative term such as “about” does not
necessarily render a claim indefinite, and a skilled artisan would understand
that the claimed starting point and ending point of about a first and about a
second predetermined frequency range in claim 57 means the frequencies do
not have to be exactly between two particular frequency values but can be
approximately a first and second frequency. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant also
points to examples in Figures 4—8 of the Specification in which the ranges
were not exactly between two frequencies but were approximate ranges. Id.
We determine that a skilled artisan would understand that claims 57—
60 recite target signal forms with a starting point, ending point, and peak that
is approximately at a first, second, or third predetermined frequency. The
Specification discloses bell shaped curves starting at or closely after 50 Hz
and ending at or before 80 Hz. Spec. 135. Bell shaped curves start at 50 Hz
and end near 65 Hz (Fig. 5), decay to 80 Hz (Fig. 6), end at 60 Hz (Fig. 7),
and end before 80 Hz (Fig. 8). Spec. 35, 50-54.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 57—60 as indefinite.
Claim 46 Anticipated by Palti
The Examiner finds that Palti discloses a system that detects coronary
artery disease from data obtained by a Doppler ultrasound sensor placed on a
patient’s chest and processed to detect an echo that is frequency shifted and
the amount of shift reflects a blood flow velocity profile in a region that is
indicative of stenosis of the coronary artery as recited in claim 46. Final
Act. 6—7; Ans. 6—7.
9
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Appellant argues that Palti does not detect a target signal form in a
predetermined frequency range, as claimed, or operate in specific ranges
associated with Stenosis. Appeal Br. 25. Appellant argues that Palti uses
very high ultrasound frequencies of Doppler systems that typically operate at
over tens of thousands of Hz in order to measure more accurately the small
phase shifts of interest that occur and this phase shift is independent of any
frequency ranges. Id. at 25—26; Reply Br. 6. We agree.
Palti discloses that ultrasound imaging systems can detect stenosis in
the carotid artery by imaging the blood flow in the artery to determine the
velocity of blood flow. Palti 19. Moving blood cells reflect the ultrasound
energy as echoes that increase or decrease the frequency of reflected energy
depending on the direction of blood flow and the angle of incidence of the
beam. Id. A second transducer receives the echo and detects the frequency
shift from which the velocity of the blood flow may be calculated. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Palti discloses that velocity profiles
calculated in this manner may be used to diagnose the degree of stenosis that
exists in an artery. Ans. 7. Palti discloses that stenosis of about 80 to 85
percent results in a 25 times increase in velocity, which may be detected by
examining the velocity along the length of the vessel. Id.', Palti 161.
We agree with Appellant that a frequency shift rather than a particular
predetermined frequency is used to determine a velocity profile indicative of
stenosis of a coronary artery as the Examiner recognizes. Reply Br. 5—6;
Ans. 7; Palti H 9, 39, 61—63, Fig. 3. Palti discloses that the likelihood of
stenosis can be determined from particular velocity profiles that exhibit
increases indicative of stenosis, but the velocity profiles are not identified
and do not occur necessarily in a predetermined frequency range as claimed.
10
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
The finding that “a predetermined frequency range is developed as
part of the calibration that would relate the amount of frequency shift to
velocity (i.e., the system targets the same frequency range of the transmitted
Doppler signal)” (Ans. 7) is not supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Palti discloses that Doppler systems include a transmitter that generates high
frequency electronic signals that are amplified and output through at least
one piezoelectric transducer and moving blood cells reflect the ultrasound
energy with the frequency of reflected energy increasing or decreasing with
the direction of blood flow and angle of incidence of the beam. Palti 142.
Palti discloses that each transducer directs ultrasound waves at 3—10 Mhz
but any appropriate frequency or frequencies can be used, as desired, to
enable improved system performance and detection. Id. 142. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 46 as anticipated by Palti.
Claims 46—51, 54, 57—59, 64, and 65
Rejected Over Mohler ’289 andMohler ’872
Appellant argues claims 46, 47, 49, 50, 54, 64, and 65 as a group.
Appeal Br. 27—34. We select claim 46 as the representative claim of the
grouping, with claims 47, 49, 50, 54, 64, and 65 standing or falling with
claim 46. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 46, 47, 49, 50, 54, 64, and 65
The Examiner finds that Mohler ’289 discloses a system for detecting
coronary artery disease as recited in claim 46 including analyzing processed
data to detect a target signal form in a predetermined frequency range. Final
Act. 8—9. The Examiner finds that Mohler ’872 discloses analyzing target
signal forms where acoustic signatures indicative of 65% and 90% occlusion
can be obtained by analyzing target signal forms. Id. at 9.
11
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Appellant argues that Mohler ’872 filters low frequency sounds such
as those below about 400 Hz and de-emphasizes those signals and therefore
explicitly teaches away from obtaining, storing, or processing data in the
predetermined frequency range that is indicative of at least 50 percent to 99
percent stenosis of the coronary artery. Appeal Br. 28. Appellant argues
that because Mohler ’872 filters and de-emphasizes all target signal forms in
the frequency range that is indicative of at least 50 to 99 percent stenosis of a
coronary artery, Mohler ’872 cannot teach or suggest a system that analyzes
processed data to detect a target signal form in a predetermined frequency
range that is indicative of at least 50 percent to 99 percent stenosis of a
coronary artery. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive primarily because they are
not commensurate with the scope of claim 46, which does not recite a range
of frequencies in hertz as Appellant implicitly argues by arguing that Mohler
’872 filters to de-emphasize low frequency responses below about 400 Hz.
Appeal Br. 27—28; Ans. 8. We decline to limit claim 46 to such unclaimed
frequency ranges or to read such frequency ranges from the Specification
into claim 46 when the language of claim 46 is broader. Indeed, dependent
claims 55 and 56 recite particular frequency ranges that we do not read into
claim 46 from which these claims depend. In addition, Appellant discloses
that four conditions must be met to indicate 50—99% stenosis. A bell curve
must appear in the range of 50-80 Hz by sloping up at or closely after 50
Hz, sloping down to end at or before 80 Hz. Spec, 7, 35. If one or more
of these four criteria are not satisfied, a stethoscope outputs an indicator that
a patient is likely to have less than 50 percent of the LAD portion of the
coronary artery blocked. Id. f35.
12
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
The Examiner’s finding is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Mohler ’289 teaches that occlusions of the cardiovascular system may be
associated with coronary heart disease and stenosis, and these conditions can
be the source of abnormal sounds called bruits. Mohler ’289 193. Mohler
’289 discloses frequencies that can be used to detect various bruit candidates
that may indicate a probability of cardiovascular disease. Id. 1109, Table 1.
Mohler ’872 discloses that abnormal heart sounds can be detected and
the sound frequencies are indicative of coronary artery disease and may be
used to diagnose severe aortic stenosis 1702, aortic stenosis 1706, pulmonic
stenosis 1712, and the like. Mohler ’872, 16:35—65, Figs. 10a—c, and 13—15.
The processed data can be used to indicate 65% occlusion of the left anterior
descending coronary artery {id. at 16:54—56) up to 90% occlusion of the left
coronary artery (id. at 17:15—18). Ans. 8—9 (bruits that occur at specific
frequencies are target signal forms in a predetermined frequency range).
Mohler ’872 processes acoustic data and converts with fast Fourier
transformation to output graphs of frequency 1108 versus relative amplitude
1106 (Fig. 10b), amplitude 1102 v. time 1104 (Fig. 10a), and frequency
1110 versus time 1112 (Fig. 10c). Mohler ’872, 14:9—24, and 15:17-47.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 46 and claims 47, 49, 50, 54,
64, and 65 that fall with claim 46.
Claim 48
The Examiner finds that Mohler ’872 teaches a display configured to
display an output indicative of a presence or absence of the target signal
form as recited in claim 48. Final Act. 10. In particular, the Examiner finds
that Figure 15 of Mohler ’872 teaches target signal forms that are indicative
of a certain amount of stenosis. Id.
13
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Appellant argues that Figure 15 of Mohler ’872 shows raw data time
series examples indicative of common abnormal heart sounds without any
analysis or comparison to provide an indication of anything. Appeal Br. 29.
This argument is not persuasive in view of Mohler ’872’s disclosure
that Figure 14 depicts time series data showing bruits indicative of coronary
artery disease, which was confirmed as 65% occlusion of the left anterior
coronary artery, and Figure 15 discloses examples of severe aortic stenosis
1702, 1704, aortic stenosis 1706, and aortic stenosis 1718 based on sound
frequencies of the heart wherein subsequent angiography confirmed 90%
occlusion of the left coronary artery. Mohler ’872, 16:47—65, and 17:15—18.
Mohler ’872 also discloses that outputs of time and frequency domain
correlators are compared to a reference library and subject to recognition
logic to determine whether a disease or adverse condition is indicated. Id. at
15:34^47, Fig. 11. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 48.
Claim 51
The Examiner also finds that Mohler ’872 teaches the identification of
the target signal form if the target signal form is detected as recited in claim
51. Final Act. 10. Appellant argues that Figure 10 of Mohler ’872 does not
teach detecting of a target signal or giving an indication that such signal was
detected. Appeal Br. 30.
We agree with the Examiner that Mohler ’872 teaches that acoustic
signals undergo digitizing, conditioning, and processing with a fast Fourier
transformation to output a time and frequency suitable for display and for
feature extraction that is compared to feature library 1220 and subjected to
recognition logic to determine if a disease or adverse condition is indicated.
Mohler ’872, 15:1—47, Fig. 11. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 51.
14
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
Claims 57—59
The Examiner finds that Figures 14a and 14b compare normal
cardiovascular sounds to abnormal signal forms indicative of stenosis and
bruits are detected that comprise a frequency range with starting and ending
frequencies as recited in claim 57. Final Act. 10—11. The Examiner also
finds that Figure 14b of Mohler ’872 discloses a target signal form with a
peak at a third frequency between a first and a second predetermined
frequency as any three bruits wherein any bruit in between the two others as
recited in claim 58, and this form can be interpreted as a curve as recited in
claim 59. Id. at 11.
Appellant argues that Mohler ’872 does not teach a target signal form
having a starting point at about a first predetermined frequency and ending
point at about a second predetermined frequency. Appeal Br. 31. Appellant
argues that Figures 14a and 14b of Mohler ’872 do not show three bruits or
bruits between one another. Appeal Br. 32.
We agree with the Examiner that Mohler ’872 teaches a target signal
that has starting and ending points at different predetermined frequencies as
shown, for example, in Figures 14a, 14b, and 15. Mohler ’872, 16:47—65.
In this regard, Figure 14a shows sound frequencies of valve closures of the
heart, and Figure 14b shows bruits indicative of coronary artery disease and
confirmed as arterial occlusion. Id. at 16:37—56. Figure 15 is similar time
series data of abnormal heart sounds from angiosonospectrographic analysis
that indicates stenosis. Id. at 16:57—65. Mohler ’872 also shows frequencies
on the vertical axis, time on the horizontal axis and amplitude curves plotted
in different color hues (not shown) and indicative of 90% occlusion. Id. at
16:66—17:18. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 57.
15
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
We also agree with the Examiner that Mohler ’872 discloses target
signal forms that have peaks at a third frequency that appears between the
first and second predetermined frequencies thereby to form curves or curve­
like patterns as recited in claims 58 and 59. As discussed above, Mohler
’872 teaches that Figures 14a and 14b show sound frequencies of heart valve
closures with time series data showing bruits or extraneous sounds that are
indicative of coronary artery disease such as occlusion of the left artery.
Mohler ’872, 16:47—56. Figure 15 shows similar time series examples of
abnormal heart sounds that are indicative of aortic stenosis that start and end
at certain frequencies with peaks between the starting and ending points. Id.
at 16:57—65. Figure 16 shows similar frequency wave form data that is
plotted with frequency on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal axis to
indicate 90% occlusion of the left coronary artery. Id. at 17:3—18.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 57—59.
Claims 52, 53, 55, 56, and 60—63 Rejected Over
Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872, and Smith/Kim/Orten/Sandler
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 52, 53, 55, 56, and 60-63
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872,
and either Smith or Kim or Orten or Sandler. The Examiner relies on Smith,
Kim, Orten, and Sandler to disclose features of those dependent claims. See
Final Act. 11—14. Appellant does not present arguments for these rejections
and therefore has waived any arguments. See Appeal Br. 8—34. Thus, we
sustain the rejections of these claims.
16
Appeal 2016-002232
Application 12/406,849
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 46—65 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the rejection of claims 57—60 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.
We reverse the rejection of claims 57—60 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for indefmiteness.
We reverse the rejection of claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Palti.
We affirm the rejection of claims 46—51, 54, 57—59, 64, and 65 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mohler ’289 and Mohler ’872.
We affirm the rejection of claims 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872, and Smith.
We affirm the rejection of claims 55 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872, and Kim.
We affirm the rejection of claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872, and Orten.
We affirm the rejection of claims 61—63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mohler ’289, Mohler ’872, and Sandler.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
17