Ex Parte Leussler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

14112580 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/112,580 10/18/2013 Christoph Leussler
24737 7590 06/04/2018
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.
2011P00184WOUS 5006
EXAMINER
WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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 CHRISTOPH LEUSSLER
Appeal2017-007900 1
Application 14/112,580
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-18. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
1 The Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-007900
Application 14/112,580
The invention relates generally to an applicator for magnetic-
resonance imaging-guided deposition of thermal energy within tissue of a
body of a patient. Spec. 1, 11. 2--4.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A thermal treatment applicator for deposition of thermal
energy within tissue of a body of a patient in a radio frequency
field generated by a magnetic resonance device, the thermal
treatment applicator comprising:
a plurality of radio frequency antennae configured to radiate a
radio frequency electromagnetic field toward the body; and
a plurality of radio frequency power amplifiers configured to
supply radio frequency signals to the radio frequency antennae,
respectively, each radio frequency power amplifier comprising a
transistor and an output matching network configured to supply
said radio frequency signals to the respective radio frequency
antenna and to transform an output impedance of the transistor
into a low impedance value,
wherein the radio frequency power amplifiers are connected
directly to the radio frequency antennae via the output matching
networks respectively associated with the radio frequency power
amplifiers, and wherein the radio frequency power amplifiers
and the radio frequency antennae are integrated within an
integrated module, and
wherein each radio frequency antenna comprises a PIN diode
switch for selectively connecting to the respective radio
frequency power amplifier within the integrated module.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-152, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
I03(a) as unpatentable over Hancock (US 2010/0036369 Al, pub. Feb. 11,
2010) and Delannoy et al. (US 5,284,144, iss. Feb. 8, 1994) (hereinafter
"Delannoy").
2 Although the statement of rejection omits claim 15, the analysis addresses
the claim. See Answer 6-8.
2
Appeal2017-007900
Application 14/112,580
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Hancock, Delannoy, and Atalar et al. (US 2009/0171421 Al, pub.
July 2, 2009) (hereinafter "Atalar").
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Hancock, Delannoy, and Krockel et al. (US 2004/0199070 Al, pub. Oct. 7,
2004) (hereinafter "Krockel'').
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3. 5-9. 11-15. 17. and 18
Each of independent claims 1, 5, and 11 recites both an output
matching network and a PIN diode switch between an amplifier and an
antenna.
We are persuaded by the Appellant's argument that:
Delannoy et al. teaches a PIN diode switch arranged between a
signal generator and a power amplifier, e.g., along with a
blanking circuit and a T filter, apparently in an attempt to prevent
damage to an MRI preamplifier. This does not teach an RF
antenna including a PIN diode for selectively connecting the RF
antenna to the RF power amplifier (the PIN diode thus being
arranged between the RF antenna and the RF power amplifier),
as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 8-9.
The Examiner finds Hancock discloses an output matching network in
its Abstract and at paragraph 53. Answer 3. Hancock discloses "[t]o control
the power supplied to its power amplifier on the basis of information
detected by the monitoring unit, each power source preferably includes an
dynamic impedance matching unit (i.e. impedance tuner) arranged to match
the impedance of each radiating element to the skin tissue to be treated."
3
Appeal2017-007900
Application 14/112,580
Hancock ,r 53. Hancock, thus, discloses an output matching network
between the amplifier and the antenna.
Hancock further discloses that a PIN diode may be used as an
impedance matching network, in that "[i]mpedance matching may be
achieved by phase adjustment ( e.g. a PIN diode or varactor diode phase
shifter[)]." Id. The Examiner, however, finds "Hancock's [PIN] diode is
not explicitly disclosed as being a PIN diode switch." Answer 3. Although
Hancock discloses the use of a PIN diode, it is used as an output matching
network. Hancock, thus, does not disclose both an output matching network
and a PIN diode switch, as claimed, between the amplifier and antenna.
Instead, the Examiner finds that Delannoy discloses the use of a PIN
diode switch, citing column 13, line 34 to column 14, line 4. Answer 3.
Here, Delannoy discloses "a pin-diode switch between the signal generator
and the amplifier was used." Delannoy col. 13, 11. 47--48; see also 11. 60-63.
Delannoy's PIN diode switch is, thus, not between the amplifier and
antenna, as claimed.
The Examiner determine that "[ t ]here is no claim language regarding
'arranged between.' That is, the claimed 'a switch for selectively connecting
to the radio frequency amplifier' does not place any further restriction on
positioning of the antenna." Answer 25. The Examiner also determines that
Delannoy's PIN diode switch, between the amplifier and signal generator,
"will perform identically no matter where the switch is positioned." Id.
We disagree with the Examiner. The plain meaning of the claim
language is that the antenna includes a PIN diode that operates as a switch,
and, thus, must be located between the antenna and amplifier. See Reply
Br. 9. The Specification explains:
4
Appeal2017-007900
Application 14/112,580
Furthermore, the RF antenna preferably comprises PIN diode
switches. In this way, the RF antennae of the applicator are made
transparent to the RF field generated by the MR device. PIN
diode switches should be used in the RF antennae of the
applicator in case the MR resonance frequency of the MR device
is close to the RF operation frequency of the applicator.
Spec. 5, 11. 21-25. The ordinary artisan would have recognized that a radio-
frequency circuit, with a PIN diode switch in it, would not operate as
described in the Specification if the switch were located outside the RF
circuit that exists between the amplifier and antenna. Delannoy, for
instance, explains the purpose of the PIN diode before the amplifier is "to
stop passively any 21 MHz signal ( emitted inadvertently from the signal
generator) from damaging the MR unit's preamplifier." Delannoy col. 13, 11.
49-52.
The Examiner has, thus, not demonstrated that the combination of
Hancock and Delannoy renders obvious both an output matching network
and PIN diode switch located between a power amplifier and antenna in a
"thermal treatment applicator for deposition of thermal energy within tissue
of a body of a patient in a radio frequency field generated by a magnetic
resonance device," as claimed. For this reason, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 5, and 11, nor of dependent claims 2, 3, 6-9, 12-15,
17, and 18, which were rejected along with claims 1, 5, and 11.
Claims 4. 10. and 16
The Examiner has not established on the record that either of Atalar or
Krockel remedy the shortcomings in the combination of Hancock and
Delannoy, as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 5, and 11. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 16 that additionally rely on
Atalar, or claim 10 that additionally relies on Krockel.
5
Appeal2017-007900
Application 14/112,580
DECISION
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-18.
REVERSED
6