Ex Parte Harlev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2016

11672562 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/672,562 02/08/2007 Doron Harlev
42074 7590 09/08/2016
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
PATENT DOCKETING - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (32469)
2200 WELLS FARGO CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3901
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.
432469 000948 1034
EXAMINER
SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2016 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):
PatentDocketing@FaegreBD.com
e-OfficeActionBSC@FaegreBD.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DORON HARLEY and ADAM PIDLISECKY
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
Technology Center 3700
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
and a system for determining a position of a catheter and impedance
registration. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Rhythmia Medical, Inc.,
which is a subsidiary of Boston Scientific Corporation (see Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
Statement of the Case
Background
Appellants' "invention relates to determining the position of an object,
such as tracking the position of a catheter in a patient's heart cavity, and to
the registration of a representation of a space, such as a 3D representation of
the patient's heart cavity, to a coordinate system used to track the catheter"
(Spec. 1 :2-5).
The Claims
Claims 1-52 are on appeal. Independent claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for determining a position of a catheter within a
distribution of materials having different conductivities, the
method comprising:
causing current to flow in the distribution of materials, the
distribution of materials comprising an organ of a patient;
measuring, by one or more electrodes on the catheter
within the distribution of materials, an electrical signal at each of
multiple locations in the distribution of materials in response to
the current flow;
providing information about predicted signals determined
from spatial information about the distribution of materials, the
spatial information indicative of regions of different conductivity
in the distribution of materials; and
determining the position of the catheter with respect to the
spatial information about the distribution of materials based on
the electrical signals measured in response to the current flow
and the spatial information, wherein determining the position of
the catheter comprises using an algorithm that minimizes
differences between the electrical signals measured in response
to the current flow and the predicted signals determined from the
spatial information about the distribution of materials as a
function of the relative position.
2
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
The Issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6-10, 13-21, 23-27, 29, 30, 33-
37, 39--42, 44--47, and 49-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Beatty2 and Bruder3 (Ans. 2--4).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 22, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Beatty, Bruder, and Fuimaono4 (Ans. 4--5).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 31, 32, 38, and 48 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Beatty, Bruder, and Ben-Haim5 (Ans. 5).
D. The Examiner rejected claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Beatty, Bruder, and Guck6 (Ans. 6).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Beatty and Bruder
The Examiner finds that Beatty teaches
a method comprising the steps of securing multiple sets of
current injecting electrodes to an organ (electrodes within the
heart are secured to the heart), (see passive and active electrodes
44, fig. 2) causing current to flow among the multiple sets of
current injecting electrodes to generate a field in the organ in
response to current flow, measuring the field at each of one or
more additional electrodes (see fig. 2, see col. 3, lines 53-58)
determining expected signal measurements of the field using a
pre-determined model of the field and determining a position of
each of the one or more additional electrodes in the organ based
on the measurements made by the additional electrodes and the
2 Beatty et al., US 6,939,309 Bl, issued Sept. 6, 2005 ("Beatty").
3 Bruder et al., US 5,634,469, issued June 3, 1997 ("Bruder").
4 Fuimaono et al., US 2007/0287902 Al, published Dec. 13, 2007
("Fuimaono").
5 Ben-Haim et al., US 6,788,967 B2, published Sept. 7, 2004 ("Ben-Haim").
6 Guck et al., US 6,631,290 B 1, issued Oct. 7, 2003 ("Guck").
3
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
determined expected signal measurements of the field (col. 5,
line 66 - col. 6, lines 62).
(Ans. 3.) The Examiner acknowledges that Beatty fails to teach "an
algorithm that minimizes differences" but finds that Bruder teaches "a
data reduction correlation algorithm which inherently provides for an
optimize minimization of differences between the compared values"
(Ans. 3--4).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
have modified Beatty such that the determination of the position
of the catheter will be based on comparing the measured signals
with stored signals using an algorithm that minimizes differences
between both values in order to provide fast and accurate
localization and monitoring of heart activity (Bruder, col. 2, lines
13-16).
(Id. at 4.)
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner's conclusion that Beatty and Bruder render the
claims prima facie obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches
Once measurements of the potential fields for different
CIE pair combinations and/or at different locations of the
catheter 110 inside the heart chamber have been performed, an
optimization routine (e.g., non-linear optimization routine) is
applied, at step 514, to the sets of recorded measurements to
determine the position of the catheter 110 relative to the 3D
representation of the endocardium surface. Specifically, the
optimization procedure applied at step 514 seeks to find the
electrode positions within the heart cavity that minimized the
alignment error between the observed potential values measured
by the PMEs, and the theoretically derived potential values.
4
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
In order to formulate the optimization problem, we first
define the vector form of Equation 1:
(D·S(6)•G)u = A(6)u = q. (2)
In Equation (2), D and G are matrices representing 3D
divergence and gradient operators, respectively, S(6) is a matrix
containing the conductivity values, u is a vector containing the
potentials, A(6) is the complete forward operator matrix and q is
a vector containing the locations of the positive and negative
current sources. Although the location of the CIEs with respect
to the independent tracking system is known, the locations of
those electrodes with respect to the coordinate system of the 3D
representation of the heart cavity is not known, and thus needs to
be determined.
(Spec. 29:4--21; see also Ans. 8.)
2. The Specification teaches that "[b ]y minimizing equation (7), a
model, m, is determined that leads to the best fit of the observed data (i.e.,
the measured potential fields) in a least-squares sense" (Spec. 32: 19-20; see
also Ans. 8).
3. The Specification teaches that
Solution of Equation (7) yields the locations of the mega
catheter electrodes, with respect to the frame of reference of the
3D representation of the endocardium surface, that result in the
best fit between the theoretical data and the observed data. As
will become apparent below, with these electrode location values
now determined, the transformation parameters to transform
coordinates in the frame of reference of independent tracking
system 180 to the frame of reference of the 3D representation of
the endocardium surface may subsequently be computed.
Minimizing Equation (7) requires a non-linear
optimization approach. There are multiple techniques that may
be used to arrive at a solution. In general there are two classes of
techniques that may be used: stochastic and deterministic.
Stochastic optimization techniques, such as simulated annealing
5
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
and genetic algorithms, involve stochastically guided searches of
the model space to find a suitable minimum. Deterministic
approaches, such as Gauss-Newton approach, Levenberg-
Marquardt approach and the Newton method, involve solving a
linearized version of the non-linear problem multiple times in
order to achieve a suitable solution.
(Spec. 32:25-33:10; see also Ans. 8.)
4. Beatty teaches
A mapping catheter is positioned in a heart chamber, and
active electrode sites are activated to impose an electric field
within the chamber. The blood volume and wall motion
modulates the electric field, which is detected by passive
electrode sites on the preferred catheter. Electrophysiology
measurements, as well as geometry measurements, are taken
from the passive electrodes and used to display a map of intrinsic
heart activity.
(Beatty Abstract; see also Ans. 7 .)
5. Beatty teaches
A therapy catheter system can also be introduced into the
heart chamber. A modulated electrical field delivered to an
electrode on this therapy catheter can be used to show the
location of the therapy catheter within the heart. The therapy
catheter location can be displayed on the dynamic
electrophysiologic map in real time along with the other
diagnostic information. Thus the therapy catheter location can
be displayed along with the intrinsic or provoked electrical
activity of the heart to show the relative position of the therapy
catheter tip to the electrical activity originating within the heart
itself. Consequently the dynamic electrophysiology map can be
used by the physician to guide the therapy catheter to any desired
location within the heart itself.
The dynamic electrophysiologic map is produced in a
step-wise process. First, the interior shape of the heart is
determined. This information is derived from a sequence of
6
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
geometric measurements related to the modulation of the applied
electric field. Knowledge of the dynamic shape of the heart is
used to generate a representation of the interior surface of the
heart.
Next, the intrinsic electrical activity of the heart is
measured. The signals of physiologic origin are passively
detected and processed such that the magnitude of the potentials
on the wall surface may be displayed on the wall surface
representation. The measured electrical activity may be
displayed on the wall surface representation in any of a variety
of formats. Finally, a location current may be delivered to a
therapy catheter within the same chamber. The potential sensed
from this current may be processed to determine the relative or
absolute location of the therapy catheter within the chamber.
(Beatty 2:6-36; see also Ans. 7.)
6. Beatty teaches
The electrical potentials present on the passive electrode set 48
represent the summation of the underlying electrophysiological
signals generated by the heart and the field induced by the burst.
The signal conditioner 50 separates these two components. The
preferred technique is to separate the signals based upon their
frequency.
The high pass section 56 of the signal conditioner extracts
the induced field signals as modulated by the blood volume and
the changing position of the chamber walls 125.
(Beatty 4:5-14; see also Ans. 3.)
7
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
7. Figure 5 of Beatty is reproduced below:
Knowledge provided
to the process
Figure 5 shows
Wall surface
generation process
!" Pl;c-;-·;;~··;;;y--~itti b~t~--------~- 41
i pa.ssive and I active electrodes
~-c_ha~=m_:_b~_,r~~----
Ger,en1te a current
across the active
e~ettrodes
FIG. 5
43
The step-wise processes are presented with certain physical
parameters which are either known in advance by computation
or are measured. This knowledge or information is shown in
block 53, block 55 and block 57 .... This catheter 14 places an
array of electrodes 44 in a heart 16 chamber. This array must
have both passive measurement electrode sites 48 and active
8
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
interrogation electrode sites 52 located in a known position. The
process enters a measurement and display loop at block 43 where
an interrogation pulse burst is generated by the signal generator
54 seen in FIG. 2. These pulses are generated first with the
current source at site 92 and the current sink at site 98 and second
with the current source at site 98 and the sink at site 92 as seen
in FIG. 3. At block 45 the signal conditioner 50 uses information
on the frequency and timing of the interrogation current from
block 53 to demodulate the signals and analog to digital convert
the signals received at the passive measurement electrodes 48.
At block 47 the information from block 55 is used. This
information includes both the current strength of the
interrogation pulse and the location of the interrogation source
and sink electrodes. . . . This information is used to determine
the impedance which the chamber and the blood contained in that
chamber imposes on the field generated by the interrogation
current. The knowledge from block 57 is used next. Block 49
determines how the heart chamber tissue, which has roughly
three times the impedance of blood, in combination with the type
of electrode array affects the field generated by the interrogation
electrodes.
(Beatty 6: 1-33; see also Ans. 3.)
8. Beatty teaches that " [ w] ith the distance from each electrode 84
to both excitation electrodes 88 computed from the measured voltage and the
known location of the electrodes 84 relative to each other, the locations of
each electrode 84 can be determined" (Beatty 6:39--43; see also Ans. 3).
9. Beatty teaches
the impedance of the field generated within the blood volume is
modulated by the position of the walls 125, with their higher
impedance, with respect to the location relative to the
measurement electrodes. Using this knowledge and the
measurements from block 47 the distance from the interrogation
electrodes to the heart chamber wall 125 is determined at a point
normal to the field generated by the active interrogation
electrodes 52.
9
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
(Beatty 6:44--51; see also Ans. 3).
10. Beatty teaches that "[t]he positions of the active electrodes 52
and the passive electrodes 48 relative to the heart 16 chamber walls are also
determined at this point. The loop continues as the method moves back to
block 43" (Beatty 7:26-29; see also Ans. 3).
11. Beatty teaches a "movable electrode location process (MELP)"
in which "[t]he process enters a loop at block 15 where the signal generator
54 generates a carrier current between the movable location electrode 68 and
an active electrode 52" (Beatty 11 :42--43, 47-50; see also Ans. 7).
12. Beatty teaches "the 'location vector', or three dimensional
location to be solved for in the minimization" and that "[t]he non-linear least
squares minimization may be performed on the above summation by any of
several well-known methods. The Levenberg-Marquardt method has been
used in practice to accomplish this with efficient and robust results" (Beatty
12:31-32; 47-51; see also Ans. 8).
13. Bruder teaches
a method for localizing (identifying) a site of origin of an
electrical heart activity. More specifically the invention is
directed to such a localization method of the type wherein body
surface potentials generated by the heart activity are measured at
a number of measuring points with a multi-channel measuring
system and values that characterize the body surface potentials
at the measuring points are stored. These values are compared to
comparison values stored in a databank, the comparison values
characterize comparison surface potentials that arise from
comparison heart activities whose position in the heart is known,
and the position of that comparison heart activity whose
comparison values exhibit the most similarity to the
10
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
characteristic values is emitted as the site of origin of the heart
activity in question.
(Bruder 1 :8-22; see also Ans. 4.)
14. Bruder teaches that "[t]he measured values of each electrode 4
(or of each measurement channel) are sampled" (Bruder 3 :45--46; see also
Ans. 4).
15. Bruder teaches
The comparison heart activities together with the associated
comparison surface potentials are generated by means of a heart
model[], as disclosed in the initially cited article by Killmann et
al. The heart model [] that allows the comparison surface
potentials to be calculated is embedded in a thorax model[].
A suitable thorax model is known from the initially cited
article by Bommel et al. The advantage of determining the
comparison surface potentials from the heart model [] embedded
in the thorax model [] is that the locations of the comparison heart
activities can be varied and the associated comparison surface
potentials can be calculated in a nearly arbitrary density. In
particular, the density of the locations of the comparison heart
activities can be defined according to physiological
considerations. Care must be exercised in the calculation of the
comparison surface potentials to insure that the arrangement of
the points at which the comparison surface potentials are
calculated coincides with the actual arrangement of the
electrodes [] of the multi-channel measuring arrangement.
(Bruder 3:65--4:18; see also Ans. 4.)
16. Bruder teaches "[a] data reduction both of the comparison
values Ui and of the measured values E can ... ensue by means of a spectral
decomposition of the vectors Ui and E according to the technique of principal
component analysis" (Bruder 4:31-35; see also Ans. 4.)
11
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
Principles ofLaw
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KSR!nt'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). "If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability." Id. at 41 7.
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 2-10; FF 1-16) and agree that the
claims are obvious over Beatty and Bruder. We address Appellants'
arguments below.
Claims 1--4, 6--10, 13-15, 39, and 41
Appellants contend that "Beatty and Bruder fail to describe
determining the position of the catheter using an algorithm that minimizes
differences between the measured electrical signals and the predicted
signals" (Br. 14). More particularly, Appellants argue that "Bruder
determines the location of electrical heart activity and not the location of a
catheter" (id. at 15).
We are not persuaded. Beatty teaches that "[a] modulated electrical
field delivered to an electrode on this therapy catheter can be used to show
the location of the therapy catheter within the heart," "the therapy catheter
location can be displayed along with the intrinsic or provoked electrical
physiology map," "a location current may be delivered to a therapy catheter
within the same chamber. The potential sensed from this current may be
processed to determine the relative or absolute location of the therapy
catheter within the chamber" (FF 5), that "[ w ]ith the distance from each
12
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
electrode 84 to both excitation electrodes 88 computed from the measured
voltage and the known location of the electrodes 84 relative to each other,
the locations of each electrode 84 can be determined" (FF 8), and that "[t]he
positions of the active electrodes 52 and the passive electrodes 48 relative to
the heart 16 chamber walls are also determined at this point" (FF 10).
Accordingly, Appellants' contention fails to account for Beatty's
contributions to the combination of Beatty and Bruder (see Ans. 7)
specifically teaching determining the location of the catheter. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that
Beatty discloses a therapy catheter system can be
introduced into the heart chamber. . . . [T]he therapy catheter
location can be displayed along with the intrinsic or provoked
electrical activity of the heart to show the relative position of the
therapy catheter tip to the electrical activity originating within
the heart itself. (This is "determining the position of the catheter"
as claimed)[.]
(Ans. 7 (emphasis removed).)
Appellants contend that "Bruder' s algorithm does not minimize
differences between ( 1) the electrical signals measured in response to the
current flow and (2) the predicted signals determined from the spatial
information, as recited in claim 1. Rather, Bruder' s algorithm compares
signals from electrical heart activity with heart activities originating at
known positions" (Br. 15).
We do not find this argument persuasive. As the Examiner notes,
Beatty uses minimizing equations including the Levenberg-Marquardt
approach (see Ans. 8; FF 12), where the Specification itself teaches that the
Levenberg-Marquardt is a minimizing equation technique (FF 3). Further,
13
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
Bruder compares vectors and values in models so that surface potentials are
calculated (FF 13-16), and Beatty uses a step-wise process such that the
location vector is solved (FF 5, 12). Therefore, because Bruder uses vector
analysis to determine locations, the position is determined from predicted
signals based on the function of the relative position.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Bruder discloses such algorithm in which two signals are
compared and the algorithm minimizes the differences between
both of them to determine the exact value, in this case, as applied
to the claims, the exact location of a specific and desired signal
(see algorithm col. 4, lines 19-35, the first signal measured by
the electrodes and later stored, see col. 3, lines 39-57, and the
second signal previously acquired, ("predicted", as claimed, see
col. 3, line 58 to col. 4, line[] 17)[)].
(Ans. 7-8.) We find Appellants' arguments, lacking supporting evidence,
insufficient to rebut the express teaching of Beatty and Bruder. See In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[A]ttomey argument [is] not
the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness").
Appellants contend that "one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to combine Bruder with Beatty. As such, the Appellant
argues that this rejection is a hindsight reconstruction" (Br. 15).
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, Bruder compares vectors
and values in models so that surface potentials are calculated and Beatty
uses a step-wise process such that the location vector is solved. As the
Examiner explains,
It[] should be noted, that an "algorithm" in the subject of
computer science, is merely a step-by-step procedure calculation.
In this case "minimization algorithm" as claimed, is a
14
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
mathematical step-by-step procedure that mm1m1zes the
difference between two values iteratively. See the examples
provides by the appellant in his own specification paragraphs
0142, which provides for known minimization algorithms in
computer science such as the Levenberg-Marquardt approach
[and] the Gauss-Newton approach. The algorithm provided by
the secondary reference of Bruder is an algorithm which provides
minimization between two values using a matrix and solving for
[E]igen vectors. The Examiner maintains that such algorithm can
be applied to the values obtained by Beatty and solve for the
variable as it would the [sic] known minimization algorithms
provided by the appellant. It would be a mere modification of
using a mathematical procedure for another that results in the
same output.
(Ans. 8.)
While we are fully aware that hindsight bias often plagues
determinations of obviousness, Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36
(1966), we are also mindful that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that "if
a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In this case, we agree with
the Examiner that the combined teachings of Beatty and Bruder regarding
using "such algorithm as disclosed by Bruder" would yield predictable
results of "modify[ing] the location procedure as disclosed by Beatty to
determine the position of the catheter" and "provid[ing] fast and accurate
method of localizing a specific position based on an acquired signal" (Ans.
8).
Further, Appellants provide no sufficient evidence of secondary
considerations such as unexpected results that overcomes the prima facie
15
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
case of obviousness based on the algorithm or mathematical step-by-step
procedure of Bruder. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470.
Claims 16, 17, 42, and 44-50
Appellants contend that "the examiner's office action does not discuss
a 'transformation,' 'a first reference frame,' or 'a second reference frame' at
all" (Br. 16).
We are not persuaded. As the Examiner explains,
Beatty discloses obtaining known spatial information of the heart
(see col. 6, lines 1--4). Then, a[n] electrode is inserted which
emits current in order to measure an electrical signals through
different locations (see col. 6, lines 6-15). Later such spatial
information and correlated with the measurement locations in
order to obtained [sic] the location of the catheter within the
heart. (see col. 7, lines 26-28, see also, the sub-theme "Movable
Electrode Location Process" section starting at col. 11 [].
Although, Beatty does not specifically discloses the term
"transformation" the information in Beatty is correlated in order
to obtain a location of the electrodes and therefore catheter,
\'l1hich is considered a transformation of reference frames.
(Ans. 9; see also FF 4--12.) Therefore, Beatty necessarily teaches
"transformation," "a first reference frame," and "a second reference frame"
in order to determine the registration and location of the catheter.
Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are
identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical
or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an
applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily
or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Appellants have provided no
sufficient evidence or argument showing that the Examiner's interpretation
is incorrect.
16
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
Appellants argue that "Bruder's algorithm is not a transformation
based on the measured electrical signals, the spatial information about the
regions of different conductivity in the distribution of materials, and the
positions in the second reference frame for the multiple locations at which
the electrical signals are measured" (Br. 17).
We do not find this argument persuasive. Appellants' contention fails
to account for Beatty's contributions to the combination of Beatty and
Bruder (see Ans. 9). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d at 1097.
Claims 18-21, 23-27, 29, 30, 33-36, and 40
Appellants similarly argue that "Bruder determines the location of
electrical heart activity and not the location of a catheter" (Br. 18), "Bruder' s
algorithm compares signals from electrical heart activity with heart activities
originating at known positions" (id.), and "one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to combine Bruder with Beatty. As such, the
Appellant argues that this rejection is a hindsight reconstruction" (id. at 19).
We are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 37 and 38
Appellants similarly argue that "the examiner's office action does not
discuss a 'transformation,' 'a first reference frame,' or 'a second reference
frame' at all" (id. at 20), and that "Bruder's algorithm compares signals from
electrical heart activity with heart activities originating at known positions"
(id.). We are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 51 and 52
Appellants similarly argue that "the examiner's office action does not
discuss a 'transformation,' 'a first reference frame,' or 'a second reference
17
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
frame' at all" (id. at 21 ), and that "Bruder' s algorithm compares signals from
electrical heart activity with heart activities originating at known positions"
(id. at 22). We are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above.
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Beatty, Bruder, and Fuimaono
Appellants contend that claims 5, 22, and 43 are "allowable at least
for the reasons discussed in" claims 1, 18, and 16, respectively (id. at 22).
Having affirmed the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 18, and 16 over
Beatty and Bruder for the reasons given above, we therefore affirm the
rejection of claims 5, 22, and 43.
C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Beatty, Bruder, and Ben-Haim
Appellants contend that claims 11, 12, 31, 31, 32, 38, and 48 are
"allowable at least for the reasons discussed in claim 1" (id.). Having
affirmed the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Beatty and Bruder for the
reasons given above, we therefore affirm the rejection of claims 11, 12, 31,
31, 32, 38, and 48.
D. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Beatty, Bruder, and Guck
Appellants contend that "[ c ]laim 28 is allowable at least for the
reasons discussed in claim [ 18]" (id. at 23). Having affirmed the
obviousness rejection of claim 18 over Beatty and Bruder for the reasons
given above, we therefore affirm the rejection of claim 28.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 16, 18, 37, and 51
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Beatty and Bruder. Claims 2--4,
6-10, 13-15, 39, 41, and 52 fall with claim 1, claims 17, 42, 44--47, 49, and
18
Appeal2014-008912
Application 11/672,562
50 fall with claim 16, and claims 19-21, 23-27, 29, 30, 33-36, and 40 fall
with claim 18.
We affirm the rejection of claims 5, 22, and 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Beatty, Bruder, and Fuimaono.
We affirm the rejection of claims 11, 12, 31, 32, 38, and 48 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Beatty, Bruder, and Ben-Haim.
We affirm the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Beatty, Bruder, and Guck.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
19