Ex Parte Koyrakh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

12972253 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/972,253 12/17/2010
55962 7590
Wiley Rein LLP
Patent Administration
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
08/12/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lev A. Koyrakh
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.
OG-045500US/82410-0389 9529
EXAMINER
TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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):
ptodocket@wileyrein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEV A. KOYRAKH, JEFFREY A. SCHWEITZER,
DANIEL R. STARKS, and CARLOS CARBONERA
Appeal2014-007443
Application 12/972,253
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lev A. Koyrakh et al. (Appellants) 1 seek review, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a), of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify St. Jude Medical, Atrial Fibrillation Division,
Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007443
Application 12/972,253
The disclosed subject matter "relates to a method and system for
detecting the movement of a reference point utilized in a non-ionizing
localization system, such as is often employed in navigating a medical
device through a patient, and mitigating the effects of such reference point
movement." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. A method of detecting dislodgement of a
navigational reference within a localization field,
the method comprising:
placing a reference catheter including at least
one reference localization element within a
localization field;
securing the reference catheter at an initial
reference location within the localization field;
computing a slow-moving average location
of the at least one reference localization element;
computing a fast-moving average location of
the at least one reference localization element;
computing a distance between the slow- and
fast-moving average locations of the at least one
reference localization element;
comparing the computed distance to a
dislodgement threshold; and
determining that a dislodgement of the
reference catheter from the initial reference location
has occurred; and
generating a signal indicative of the
dislodgement of the reference catheter from the
initial reference location.
2
Appeal2014-007443
Application 12/972,253
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hauck (US 2008/0161681 Al, published July 3,
2008).
2. Claims 2-5, 10-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hauck and Koh (US 2010/0152801 Al,
published June 17, 2010).
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hauck and Mo (US 2002/0169378 Al, published Nov. 14, 2002).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 - The rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 9,
15, and 17 under 35 US.C. § 102(b)
A. Claims 1, 6, 8, and 9
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "computing a slow-
moving average location of the at least one reference localization element"
and "computing a fast-moving average location of the at least one reference
localization element." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 1,
the Examiner relied on paragraph 41 of Hauck and stated "wherein the slow-
moving average is based on components with a fraction of 1 Hz, while the
fast-moving average is based on greater than 1 Hz, and then an absolute
amplitude is acquired from the filtered out components." Final Act. 2.
Appellants argue that the limitations at issue "cannot be found in
Hauck" and that "[t]he filters disclosed in paragraph [0041] of Hauck do not
correspond to the claimed slow- and fast-moving average locations."
Appeal Br. 9-10. The Examiner takes the position that the output of high
pass filter 150 in Hauck (see Fig. 2) satisfies one of the requirements to
3
Appeal2014-007443
Application 12/972,253
compute an "average location" and that the output of low pass filter 160
satisfies the other requirement to compute an "average location":
Hauck discloses securing the reference catheter including at least
one reference localization element (reference electrode) at an
initial reference location within the localization field (100), as a
displacement vector with an initial reference location of zero, in
the x, y and z directions [O, 0, OJ. This information then goes
through a high pass filter having a cutoff frequency of about 0.01
Hz and more preferably 0.001 Hz ([element] 150) to compute an
average location of the at least one reference localization element
(reference electrode) .... The updated location is then input to a
low pass filter having a cutoff frequency of about 0 .1 Hz to about
0.5 Hz, and more preferable about 0.15 Hz ([element] 160) to
compute an average location of the at least one reference
localization element.
Ans. 8. 2 The Examiner states that the output of low pass filter 160
"indicates a computed distance between the slow- and fast-moving average
locations of the at least one reference localization element calculated by the
high pass filter and the low pass filter." Id. at 8-9.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We agree with Appellants that the record does not
support the Examiner's finding that Hauck discloses the limitations at issue.
As noted by Appellants (Appeal Br. 10), paragraph 41 of Hauck discloses
the use of high pass filter 150 and low pass filter 160 to remove error
sources, characterized by certain frequency ranges, from a signal associated
2 The Examiner does not identify which filter allegedly provides a
"slow-moving average location" and which allegedly provides a "fast-
moving average location." See Ans 8-9.
4
Appeal2014-007443
Application 12/972,253
with the location of a navigational reference. Although the output of each
filter provides information regarding location over time (see Hauck i-f 41 ),
Hauck does not disclose computing an average of that location information.
Indeed, paragraph 41 does not explicitly describe each of the filters as
providing an average location and the Examiner has not shown that one of
ordinary skill in the art would consider the disclosed filtering as implicitly or
inherently providing an average location.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the
rejection of claims 6, 8, and 9, which depend from claim 1.
B. Claims 15 and 17
Independent claim 15 recites, in relevant part, "a reference catheter
dislodgement processor that monitors for a dislodgement of the reference
catheter from an initial reference location based, at least in part, on a
difference between a slow-moving average location and a fast-moving
average location of at least one of the plurality of reference localization
elements on the reference catheter." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). In
rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relied on the same findings discussed above
with regard to claim 1. See Final Act. 2. Thus, we also do not sustain the
rejection of claim 15 or the rejection of claim 17, which depends therefrom.
Rejection 2 - The rejection of claims 2-5, 10-14,
16and18 under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
A. Claims 2-5
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 16-17 (Claims App.).
The Examiner's added reliance on Koh does not remedy the deficiencies in
the teachings of Hauck, discussed above (see supra Rejection 1 § A). Thus,
for the reasons above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5.
5
Appeal2014-007443
Application 12/972,253
B. Claims 10-14, 16, and 18
Independent claim 10 recites, in relevant part, "analyzing a direction
of the perceived displacement to determine whether there has been a
dislodgement of the reference catheter from the initial reference location."
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner stated that
Hauck does not disclose the limitation at issue, but stated that Koh, in
paragraphs 124 and 143, discloses that limitation. See Final Act. 6.
Appellants contend that the combination of Hauck and Koh does not
satisfy the limitation at issue. Appeal Br. 13. We agree. Regarding
paragraph 143, we agree with Appellants that it appears "unrelated to
dislodgment of a medical device within the heart." Id. 3
In the Answer, the Examiner (citing paragraphs 123 and 124 of Koh)
states that Koh teaches "an electrode positioned in a vessel, and a
localization system that provides four-dimensional information of the
electrode (XYZ and time). If the position of the electrode dislodges, a shift
in the electrode's position (XYZ and time) will be apparent in a display or
analysis of the acquired information." Ans. 10. The Examiner also states
that "claim 10 does not disclose a specific way in which the direction of the
perceived displacement is analyzed" and that "[i]f an initial XYZ position at
a first time is known and a XYZ position at a time of dislodgement is
known, then the direction of the displacement is also known." Id.
3 Although Appellants present arguments regarding paragraphs 136
and 139 of Koh (Appeal Br. 13), the Examiner relied on these paragraphs,
not for the limitation at issue in claim 10, but rather, to address claim 13 (see
Final Act. 6).
6
Appeal2014-007443
Application 12/972,253
Considering the Examiner's statements regarding claim 10 as a whole
(Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 9--10), we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
has, at most, established that Koh teaches the ability to know the direction of
perceived displacement. Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants that "[i]t
does not, however, follow that, just because Koh allows one to know the
direction of perceived displacement, that the direction is used (or 'analyzed')
in any way whatsoever" (id.), including in the recited manner-i.e., "to
determine whether there has been a dislodgement of the reference catheter
from the initial reference location" (Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.)).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, or the
rejection of claims 11-14, 16, and 18, which depend from claim 10.
Rejection 3 - The rejection of claim 7
under 35 USC§ 103(a)
Claim 7 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The
Examiner's added reliance on Mo does not remedv the deficiencies in the .,
teachings of Hauck, discussed above (see supra Rejection 1 § A). Thus, for
the reasons above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1-18.
REVERSED
7