Ex Parte LI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 201711528291 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/528,291 09/27/2006 Dun Alex Li 206323-l/YOD 6395 (GEMS:0298) 68174 7590 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 11/16/2017 EXAMINER REMALY, MARK DONALD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/16/2017 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): rariden @ fyiplaw .com docket@fyiplaw.com robinson @ fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DUN ALEX LI, VERNON THOMAS JENSEN, and CRISTIAN ATRIA1 Appeal 2015-004683 Application 11/528,291 Technology Center 3700 Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and ULRIKH W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a method for selecting between a plurality of electromagnetic sensors, and a system and program each for selecting an optimum electromagnetic sensor to locate a device. The Patent Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2015-004683 Application 11/528,291 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention concerns “tracking systems that use magnetic fields such as for surgical interventions and other medical procedures. More particularly, the present invention relates to techniques for the correction of multiple electromagnetic sensor positions.” Spec. 11. Claims 1—20 are on appeal. Claims 1, 13, 14, and 20 are representative and read as follows: 1. A method for selecting between a plurality of electromagnetic sensors to locate a device, comprising: in the presence of an electromagnetic field, acquiring signals of the representative location of each of a plurality of electromagnetic sensors; selecting between the sensors from the plurality of electromagnetic sensors based on one or more quality metrics, each of the sensors emitting signals in response to the electromagnetic field; determining the location of a device in the electromagnetic field based upon the signals from the selected sensor; and projecting the device location on an image of a subject in the electromagnetic field and displaying the image and projection. 13. A system for selecting an optimum electromagnetic sensor to locate a device, comprising: a plurality of electromagnetic sensors; an additional electromagnetic sensor configured to generate an electromagnetic field, wherein each of the sensors of the plurality of electromagnetic sensors is configured to emit signals in response to the electromagnetic field; a controller configured to acquire signals representative of the location of the plurality of electromagnetic sensors, to select between the sensors from the plurality of electromagnetic 2 Appeal 2015-004683 Application 11/528,291 sensors based on one or more quality metrics, to determine the location of a device in the electromagnetic field based upon the signals from the selected sensor, and to project the device location on an image of a subject in the electromagnetic field; and a display to display the image and projection. 14. The system of claim 13, comprising an imaging system, and wherein the plurality of electromagnetic sensors are fixed in relation to the imaging system. 20. A computer program, stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, for selecting an optimum electromagnetic sensor to locate a device, the program constructed and arranged to: acquire signals representative of the location of each of a plurality of electromagnetic sensors, each of the sensors emitting signals in response to an electromagnetic field; select between the sensors from the plurality of electromagnetic sensors based on one or more quality metrics; determine the location of a device in the electromagnetic field based upon the signals from the selected sensor; and project the device location on an image of a subject in the electromagnetic field and display the image and projection. This application was the subject of an earlier appeal to the Board. Appeal 2011-012461, decided Sept. 25, 2013. In the earlier appeal, we addressed several rejections by the Examiner, including the rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as unpatentable over Martinelli and Kessman, which we reversed. In this Appeal, we address the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over a 3 Appeal 2015-004683 Application 11/528,291 combination of Martinelli,2 Kessman,3 and Vosburgh.4 Examiner’s Final Office Action, dated June 17, 2014 (“Final Act.”) at 2—6. OBVIOUSNESS The Examiner found that Martinelli teaches an invention comprising each element of the claimed invention, except for (a) fixing the plurality of sensors in relation to an imaging system, (b) projecting the device location on an image, and (c) selecting a subset of sensors based on a quality metric. Final Act. 5—6. According to the Examiner, the teachings of Kessman and Vosburgh involve the same field of endeavor as Martinelli and overcome its deficiencies. Id. In particular, the Examiner found that Kessman teaches fixing a plurality of sensors in relation to an imaging system and projecting the device location on an image. Id. at 5. As for selecting between the sensors from the plurality of electromagnetic sensors based on one or more quality metrics, as required by each independent claim, the Examiner found that Vosburgh teaches “an array of sensors and selecting a subset of sensors based on a quality metric, including selecting based on the signal amplitude and the use of a threshold.” Id. at 6 (citing Vosburgh 145) (“[ojnce the elements have been interrogated, the signal with the highest amplitude signal is selected. Alternatively, the first signal to meet a selection criterion is sampled without energizing additional elements.”). In the Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief, the Examiner clarifies that the combined 2 Patent No. US 6,493,573 B1 issued to Michael A. Martinelli et al., Dec. 10, 2002. 3 Patent No. US 6,669,635 B2 issued to Paul Kessman et al., Dec. 30, 2003. 4 Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0096557 Al by Frederick Vosburgh et al., published May 5, 2005. 4 Appeal 2015-004683 Application 11/528,291 invention would result in each sensor of Martinelli being modified with the sensor array of Vosburgh, wherein the motivation for doing so would be “for the sake of redundancy, resulting in increased reliability and improved quality.” Ans. 3. According to Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings of Martinelli, Kessman, and Vosburgh “for the benefit of providing the best quality sampling data analysis.” Id. Appellants contend that the Examiner has “failed to provide any objective evidence of record for modifying Martinelli to include selecting sensors based on quality metrics.” App. Br. 6—7. Further, Appellants assert that no such evidence exists. Id. at 7. In particular, Appellants assert that “all of the measurements and/or signal values are used in Martinelli to determine the location of the sensing coil and no selection occurs between sensors in Martinelli.” Id. at 8. According to Appellants, there is therefore no reason to modify Martinelli to include selecting sensors based on quality metrics. Id. Further, Appellants assert that doing so would change the principle of operation of the Martinelli by not utilizing all of the measurements and/or signal values to determine the location of the sensing coil, rendering it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id. at 9. Having considered the evidence and the arguments, we conclude that the record does not support a conclusion of prima facie obviousness. A conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the 5 Appeal 2015-004683 Application 11/528,291 references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). As the Examiner acknowledges, Martinelli does not teach or suggest selecting between the sensors from the plurality of EM sensors based on one or more quality metrics, as required by the claimed invention. Final Act. 5— 6. The Examiner relies only on Vosburgh’s teaching to select, from an array of signaling elements, the signal with the highest amplitude to cure that deficiency. Id. at 6. However, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s motivation for modifying each sensor in Martinelli with such an array of sensors is conclusory and unpersuasive. The Examiner explains only that the proposed modification is “for the sake of redundancy, resulting in increased reliability and improved quality.” Ans. 3. The Examiner has not explained how the proposed modification of Martinelli would provide “increased reliability and improved quality.” Nor has the Examiner addressed or established that a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Vosburgh’s arrays in Martinelli’s system. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Martinelli’s method is directed to determining and compensating for the effect of a field influencing object on a field sensor/coil. In that method, Martinelli’s system relies upon measurements from each of its sensors. The Examiner has not explained how the proposed modification involving introducing multiple signal arrays and then selecting between each signal array would work in Martinelli’s system. For example, which signals/measurements would be used in combination to determine a precise location of a field sensor, and how would such selections be made, i.e., based upon what quality metric. In 6 Appeal 2015-004683 Application 11/528,291 other words, we find that the Examiner has not explained persuasively that a person of skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Martinelli and Vosburgh or that such a combination would have been successful. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection. SUMMARY We reverse the rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martinelli, Kessman, and Vosburgh. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation