Ex Parte Keupp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2018

14009551 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/009,551 10/03/2013 Jochen Keupp
24737 7590 05/23/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P00194WOUS 2940
EXAMINER
HOFFA, ANGELA MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOCHEN KEUPP 1
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
Technology Center 3700
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JAMES A. WORTH, and
TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method of magnetic resonance imaging, which have been rejected as
anticipated or obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In some magnetic resonance (MR) applications, "advanced contrast
enhancing MR techniques are favorable, which employ long and/or
repeatedly applied preparation RF [radio frequency] pulses." Spec. 2:29-30.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Koninklijke Philips, N.V.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
"A particularly promising approach for contrast enhancement ... is the
known method based on 'Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer' (CEST)."
Id. at 2:32-34.
"With this CEST technique, the image contrast is obtained by ...
selectively saturating the nuclear magnetization of the pool of exchangeable
protons." Id. at 3: 1-5. "A frequency-selective preparation RF pulse ... that
is matched to the MR frequency of the exchangeable protons is used for this
purpose." Id. at 3:9-10. "Amide proton transfer (APT) MR imaging of
endogenous exchangeable protons allows highly sensitive and specific
detection of pathological processes on a molecular level." Id. at 3:15-17.
"A problem of all known APT/CEST MR imaging techniques is that
the selective saturation prior to the actual acquisition of image data takes a
comparably long time." Id. at 3 :29-31. "[T]he desirable saturation period
for APT/CEST measurements is typically 2-5 seconds. Then, immediately
following the saturation period, an imaging sequence including a (slice-
selective) excitation RF pulse is usually applied ... and one or more MR
signals are recorded." Id. at 3:33 to 4:2.
"In clinical applications for MR examination of body regions affected
by motion ... , APT/CEST MR imaging should be combined with motion
detection to acquire MR signals in a defined motion state." Id. at 4:10-13.
Triggering the imaging sequence for MR signals acquisition by
detected motion signals is per se known in the art. However, a
conventional motion triggering, in which the imaging sequence
is initiated upon the respective trigger signal, would be
inappropriate and inefficient for APT/CEST MR imaging. The
motion phase will have changed until the MR signal acquisition
starts several seconds later.
Id. at 4:15-20.
2
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
"The invention proposes to apply the preparation RF pulses
continuously during any motion phase of the examined portion of the body,
while MR signal acquisition is performed only in one pre-defined motion
state (e.g. full expiration) .... The method of the invention enables motion-
triggered APT/CEST MR imaging of, for example, the abdomen." Id. at
5:8-14.
APT/CEST MR imaging is particularly constrained by the
safety regulations for heat deposition (SAR) in the tissue of the
examined patient because the long and powerful RF irradiation
during saturation results in a considerable SAR contribution.
According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the
number and/or the duration of the continuously radiated
preparation RF pulses are monitored, the radiation of the
preparation RF pulses being interrupted as soon as ... the
duration between two consecutive imaging sequences exceeds a
pre-defined limit.
Id. at 6:12-18.
Claims 1-12 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows (emphasis added):
1. A method of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging a
moving portion of a body, the method comprising:
detecting a motion signal from the body while
continuously subjecting the portion of the body to one or more
preparation radio-frequency (RF) pulses;
detecting a desired respiratory motion state of the moving
portion of the body from the detected motion signal;
subjecting the moving portion of the body to an imaging
sequence comprising an excitation RF pulse and switched
magnetic field gradients, wherein the imaging sequence is
triggered by the detection of the desired respiratory motion
state;
3
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
acquiring MR signals from the moving portion of the
body, wherein the MR signals are affected by one or more of
the preparation RF pulses and the imaging sequence, and
reconstructing an MR image from the acquired MR
signals, wherein
the radiation of the one or more preparation RF pulses is
interrupted when the duration between two consecutive imaging
sequences exceeds a pre-defined limit.
Claims 7 and 8, the other independent claims, are directed to an MR
device and a computer-readable medium, respectively. Claim 7 requires a
processor configured to "interrupt[] the radiation of the one or more
preparation RF pulses when the duration between two consecutive imaging
sequences exceeds a pre-defined limit." Claim 8 requires instructions that
execute a method that includes a step in which "the radiation of the one or
more preparation RF pulses is interrupted when the duration between two
consecutive imaging sequences exceeds a pre-defined limit."
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 1--4, 6-8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Miyoshi2 (Ans. 2);
Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Miyoshi or,
alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Miyoshi and
Reddy3 (Ans. 5); and
Claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Miyoshi
and An4 (Ans. 6).
2 US 2007/0069726 Al, published Mar. 29, 2007.
3 US 8,686, 727 B2, issued Apr. 1, 2014.
4 US 6,958,604 B2, issued Oct. 25, 2005.
4
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
DISCUSSION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1--4, 6-8, and 12 as anticipated by
Miyoshi. The Examiner finds that Miyoshi discloses a method meeting all
of the limitations of claim 1, including a step "wherein the radiation of the
one or more preparation RF pulses is interrupted when the duration between
two consecutive imaging sequences exceeds a pre-defined limit (a number of
the preparation RF pulses are repeated intermittently between imaging
sequences for two seconds duration, par. 0065)." Ans. 2-3. That is,
"Miyoshi teaches that when the selective saturation time period ... exceeds
2 seconds, the radiation of the one or more preparation RF pulses (i.e. the
selective saturation) is interrupted in order to begin the imaging sequence."
Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that the cited passage of Miyoshi states that the
preparation (or saturation) pulses are repeated for a set number of times; e.g.,
40 times at 50 msec intervals, for a total time period of 2 seconds. Appeal
Br. 6. Appellant argues that "Miyoshi 's SAT [saturation] interval does not
constitute a 'duration between two consecutive imaging sequences"' because
"Miyoshi discloses that a single image is generated from the magnetic
resonance signals acquired in the signal acquisition period ACK [sic, ACQ]"
shown in its Figure 4. Id. at 7.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not persuasively
shown that Miyoshi discloses a process in which "the radiation of the one or
more preparation RF pulses is interrupted when the duration between two
consecutive imaging sequences exceeds a pre-defined limit," as required by
the claims on appeal.
5
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
Miyoshi discloses "an MRI apparatus which acquires magnetic
resonance signals in combination with the spatial selective saturation"; in
particular, "when performing blood vessel imaging." Miyoshi i-fi-f l, 2. "The
selective saturation ... is performed prior to signal acquisition." Id. i163.
Miyoshi' s Figure 4 is reproduced below:
FIG.4
{\ [\ f\ f\ (\ !11111111
I i-~-v_v __ v_s_:-T-v-_v __ v_v_....., .. --il t=:-~
Figure 4 "shows an example of time chart for the signal acquisition
along with the selective saturation." Id. "[T]he selective saturation is done
at the interval SAT, then the signals are acquired in the interval ACQ." Id.
Miyoshi states that "[t]he selective saturation in the interval SAT is
repeated for a plurality of times intermittently. . . . The duration of the
interval SAT may be for example 2 seconds, during which the selective
saturation will be repeated for 40 times, for example," at intervals of 50
msec. Id. i1 65.
Miyoshi states that "[t]he signal acquisition in the interval ACQ will
be performed for a plurality of continuous TR [repetition times, id. i1 4]. In
this example each signal acquisition is represented by a TR." Id. i166. After
the "pulse sequence for magnetic resonance signal acquisition," id. i156, has
been "repeated for a given number of times," id. i1 60, the acquired signal
(echo) data is used to reconstruct a 2D or 3D image, id. i-fi-16Q.....,62. "As can
be seen from the foregoing, the selective saturation is repeated for a plurality
of times during the interval SAT, then the signal is acquired for a plurality of
continuous TR during the interval ACQ." Id. i167.
6
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
Miyoshi' s Figure 10 is reproduced below:
FIG. 10
Selective Saturation T2 IR
Signal
Acquisition
Figure 10 shows a "time chart indicating the selective saturation, T2
preparation, fat suppression, and signal acquisition." Id. i-f 84. T2 is
performed "to completely nullify the muscular tissue image." Id. i-f 80. "The
T2 preparation will be performed prior to the signal acquisition." Id. "To
completely nullify the fat tissue image ... , a fat suppression will be
performed ... prior to the signal acquisition." Id. i-f 82. Thus, "[a]s shown
in FIG. 10, the selective saturation is repeated for a plurality of times, then
T2 preparation, and fat suppression are performed, followed by the signal
acquisition." Id. i-f 84.
Appellant argues that,
[a]lthough a review of Miyoshi 's disclosure by Appellant's
representative does not reveal a disclosure by Miyoshi of
acquiring consecutive images ... , the duration for acquiring
consecutive images would be the sum of the individual periods
for the selective saturation, T2 preparation, fat suppression IR,
and signal acquisition ACK [sic, ACQ] illustrated by Miyoshi 's
Fig. 10 and the period of any other delay between executing
each sequence of operations illustrated by Miyoshi 's Fig. 10.
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant provides the following annotated version of
Miyoshi's Figure 10:
' .
r----------------------------------
7
Urikt:o\vn
pedo'C!
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
Id. at 8. The annotated figure shows the time chart of Miyoshi's Figure 10
repeated two times, with a period of "Other delay" in between. The figure
also shows that Appellant interprets the "Duration between consecutive
images" to include the "Other delay" period and all of the periods shown in
Miyoshi's Figure 10.
Appellant argues that Miyoshi
does not disclose what period of delay, such as that indicated by
"Other delay" in the illustration below, may occur between
executing each sequence of operations illustrated by Miyoshi 's
Fig. 10. Additionally, Miyoshi does not disclose the periods for
the T2 preparation and fat suppression IR. Thus, based upon
Miyoshi 's disclosure, it is impossible to determine the duration
between acquiring two consecutive images, even if Miyoshi
were to disclose acquiring such two consecutive images.
Id. at 7-8.
The Examiner responded by annotating Appellant's annotated figure,
as shown below:
~
~~}~~~~~-~~~~~~ ~~~~04~~~~~~~; ~~~~~~~*~
:;<
~-? i~~.x~s~~~~~~~~~~~v~~-K~~~~~~N~*~x~~x~~-~~~~~
Ans. 8. The Examiner's annotations indicate that the "Imaging Sequence"
recited in claim 1 is made up of Miyoshi's T2, IR, and Signal Acquisition
periods, and that the "Duration between consecutive images" is made up of
the "Other delay" indicated by Appellant and Miyoshi' s period of "Selective
Saturation."
8
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
Id.
The Examiner reasons that
[b ]ased upon a reading of Miyoshi, the time period for the
"other delay" is zero, and therefore, the 2-second time period
can be considered the claimed "pre-defined limit". However,
for the sake of argument, if the time period for the "other delay"
is greater than zero, then the "pre-defined limit" would equal
"other delay" plus 2 seconds. Regardless of the length of any
"other delay", there is still a predefined time limit that causes
the interruption of the preparation pulses.
In our view, Appellant's position is more consistent with the claim
language and Miyoshi' s disclosure. In the method defined by claim 1, "the
radiation of the one or more preparation RF pulses is interrupted when the
duration between two consecutive imaging sequences exceeds a pre-defined
limit." Miyoshi, on the other hand, states that preparation RF pulses (i.e.,
selective saturation) "is repeated for a plurality of times." Miyoshi i-f 65.
Miyoshi gives the example of selective saturation being repeated 40 times at
50 msec intervals, giving a total time of 2 seconds for the selective
saturation period. Thus, in Miyoshi' s method, the time for ending
(interrupting) the saturation period is measured from the start of the
saturation period, rather than being based on "the duration between two
consecutive imaging sequences," as required by claim 1.
In addition, Miyoshi describes the purpose of the T2 and IR periods
shown in its Figure 10 as being "[t]o completely nullify the muscular tissue
image" and "[ t Jo completely nullify the fat tissue image," respectively.
Miyoshi i-fi-180, 82. Miyoshi expressly states that both T2 preparation and fat
suppression are "performed prior to the signal acquisition." Id. Miyoshi's
"echo signal acquisition" provides the "echo data" that is used to reconstruct
a 2D or 3D image. Id. i-fi-160-62.
9
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
Thus, the Examiner's interpretation of claim 1 's "imaging sequence"
as including the T2 and IR periods shown in Miyoshi's Figure 10 is not
consistent with Miyoshi' s description of its process. Rather, the recited
"imaging sequence" corresponds to the "Signal Acquisition" period of
Miyoshi's Figure 10.
In summary, we conclude that the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 8 as
anticipated by Miyoshi is based on a less persuasive reading of the
reference's disclosure and on an unreasonably broad interpretation of the
claim language. We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 8, as
well as dependent claims 2--4, 6, and 12, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Miyoshi.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 as either anticipated by Miyoshi or
obvious based on Miyoshi and Reddy. Ans. 5. Claim 5 depends from claim
1; we reverse the anticipation basis of the rejection for the reasons discussed
above. The Examiner cited Reddy as disclosing the additional limitation of
claim 5 but pointed to no disclosure in Reddy that would make up for the
deficiency in Miyoshi discussed above. See Ans. 5---6. We therefore reverse
the obviousness basis of this rejection as well.
The Examiner rejected claims 9-11 as obvious based on Miyoshi and
An. Ans. 6. The Examiner, however, cited An only for the specific types of
preparation RF pulses recited in claims 9-11 and pointed to no disclosure in
An that would make up for the deficiency in Miyoshi discussed above. See
Ans. 6-7. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejection based on Miyoshi
and An.
10
Appeal2017-006779
Application 14/009,551
SUMMARY
We reverse all of the rejections on appeal.
REVERSED
11