Ex Parte Hurd

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2013

11562394 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte RALPH E. HURD1
__________

Appeal 2012-001749
Application 11/562,394
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
magnetic resonance imaging system. The Examiner has rejected the claims
as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-7 are on appeal (App. Br. 1). We will focus on claim 1, the
only independent claim on appeal, which reads as follows:

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric Company
(App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2012-001749
Application 11/562,394

2
1. A magnetic resonance (MR) imaging system comprising:
a plurality of gradient coils positioned about a bore of a magnet to
impress a polarizing field;
an RF coil assembly coupled to a pulse generator to emit an RF pulse
sequence and arranged to receive resulting MR signals from a subject within
the bore; and
a system control coupled to the plurality of gradient coils and to the
RF coil assembly, the system control configured to control operation of the
plurality of gradient coils and the RF coil assembly and programmed to
sample MR signals during a sampling period and cause a long-range
decoupling of protons from non-hydrogen nuclei during the sampling period,
wherein the long-range decoupling comprises a long-range decoupling of
protons that do not substantially affect resolution during the sampling
period.
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Golman2 in view of Seto3 and Foxall4 (Ans. 5).
The Examiner relies on Golman for teaching “magnetic resonance
imaging comprising a send/receive scanner with a plurality of coils
including a transmit coil and RF coil assembly with software system control
for RF pulse sequencing . . . and MR sampling” (id.). The Examiner finds
that Golman does “not expressly teach long range decoupling during MR
sampling” (id.).
The Examiner relies on Seto for teaching “a nuclear magnetic
resonance device in the field of MR spectroscopy having a transmitter coil
within the bore of a magnet along with an RF coil for RF pulse generation

2 Klaes Golman & J. Stefan Petersson, Metabolic Imaging and Other
Applications of Hyperpolarized 13C, 13 ACAD. RADIOL. 932-942 (2006).
3 Seto et al., US 4,689,561, Aug. 25, 1987.
4 Foxall et al., US 2008/0211499 A1, Sep. 4, 2008.
Appeal 2012-001749
Application 11/562,394

3
. . . for long-range decoupling during sampling of MR signals from non-
hydrogen nuclei” (id.). In support of this position:
The examiner notes that a long-range coupling is a weak
coupling that occurs when carbons and hydrogens are separated
by more than two or three chemical bonds. . . . The examiner
thus interprets ‘RF irradiation to break weak couplings between
hydrogen and carbon nuclei’ while 13C is under observation . . .
to be comparable to ‘long-range decoupling during sampling of
MR signals from non-hydrogen nuclei’.
(Id.) The Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to modify the MR imaging system
disclosed by Golman et al with the method of long-range
decoupling disclosed by Seto('56l) to compare 13C spectrum
following decoupling in order to understand how many
hydrogen atoms are bonded to the carbon atoms to further
clarify chemical structure and ultimately improve SNR of the
image.
(Id. at 5-6.)
The Examiner relies on Foxall for teaching, “in the field of low-power
decoupling, . . . using RF coils to sample signals and cause decoupling” (id.
at 6). The Examiner also finds that “the scanner controller, item 54, and user
interface, item 64, would be reasonably capable of maintaining the
resolution levels during sampling” (id.). The Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to modify the MR imaging system
disclosed by Golman et al and the method of long-range
decoupling disclosed by Seto('561) with the MR sampling
method with scanner controller and user interface as described
by Foxall('499) in order to further clarify chemical structure and
ultimately improve SNR of the image while maintaining image
resolution.
Appeal 2012-001749
Application 11/562,394

4
(Id.)
ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that Seto teaches a long-range decoupling of protons
from non-hydrogen nuclei (Ans. 5; App. Br. 5-6). In particular, Seto
discloses a nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy method comprising
“applying weak radio-frequency irradiation . . . in synchronism with the
application of the pulse train” (Seto, Abstract). Seto also discloses that “the
weak RF radiation . . . is applied to the sample to decouple only a certain
hydrogen nucleus” (id. at col. 3, ll. 63-65). Instead, the question raised in
this appeal is whether the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that the
applied references suggest long-range decoupling during the sampling
period.
As noted by Appellant (Reply Br. 2), Seto discloses that a “free
induction decay signal (echo signal) FID1 . . . is fed via the gate 7 to the A/D
converter 8, where it is sampled while the gate 7 is enabled” (Seto, col. 3,
ll. 16-20 (emphasis added)). Thus, the evidence of record supports
Appellant’s argument that “the sampling period of Seto is illustrated in
FIG. 3(b)” (Reply Br. 2), which depicts the “on/off period of gate 7” (Seto,
col. 3, ll. 20-21), that is, that the sampling period is the period during which
gate 7 is on/enabled.
As also noted by Appellant (App. Br. 5), “FIG. 2(c) shows the time
interval during which selectively decoupling, weak RF irradiation is applied
to hydrogen nuclei” (Seto, col. 3, ll. 7-10). However, we agree with
Appellant that the time interval for the sampling period shown in FIG. 3(b)
does not correspond to the application of irradiation for long-range
Appeal 2012-001749
Application 11/562,394

5
decoupling shown in FIG 2(c) (Reply Br. 2). Instead, we conclude that
FIG. 2(c) supports Appellant’s position that “the weak RF irradiation is
applied for long-range decoupling prior to the sampling period for the echo
signal” (App. Br. 6).
The Examiner argues, however, that “decoupling occurs as shown in
figure 2b at the same time as sampling interval shown in figure 3b” (Ans. 8).
However, as noted by Appellant (App. Br. 5), “FIG. 2(b) shows the time
intervals during which strong, noise-decoupling RF irradiation is applied to
hydrogen nuclei” (Seto, col. 3, ll. 5-7 (emphasis added)). In addition, the
Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that this strong, noise-
decoupling RF radiation causes the claimed long-range decoupling. Thus,
we conclude that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Seto
discloses long-range decoupling during the sampling period.5
In addition, Foxall discloses a magnetic resonance spectroscopy
method wherein “nuclear species are decoupled during the generating of the
spin echo but not during the reading” (Foxall, Abstract). Thus, even if we
assume that Foxall teaches long-range decoupling, we agree with Appellant
that Foxall “teaches decoupling before the readout/sampling period” (App.
Br. 7). Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that Foxall discloses long-
range decoupling during the sampling period.

5 We note that Seto discloses that the “weak RF radiation for decoupling
only a certain hydrogen nucleus may be shifted at time intervals as shown in
FIG. 2(c')” (Seto, col. 4, ll. 49-51). However, as the Examiner has not relied
on this teaching in making the rejection, we have not considered this
teaching in rendering our decision.
Appeal 2012-001749
Application 11/562,394

6
Moreover, the Examiner does not rely on Golman to teach long-range
decoupling during the sampling period (Ans. 5). Thus, we conclude that the
Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that the applied references
teach or suggest long-range decoupling during the sampling period.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Golman, Seto,
and Foxall suggest the method of claim 1. We therefore reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-6, which depend from
claim 1.

REVERSED

cdc