Ex Parte Nachabé et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201613379668 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/379,668 01/06/2012 Rami Nachabe 24737 7590 09/01/2016 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. 2009P00820WOUS 1000 EXAMINER GORADIA, SHEFALI DINESH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/01/2016 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): marianne.fox@philips.com debbie.henn@philips.com patti. demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAMI NACHABE, BERNARDUS HENDRIKUS WILHELMUS HENDRIKS, DRAZENKO BABIC, AUGUSTINUS LAURENTIUS BRAUN, MARJOLEINVANDER VOORT, ADRIEN EMMANUEL DESJARDINS, NENAD MIHAJLOVIC, and RIK HARBERS Appeal2015-003235 Application 13/379,668 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-10 and 12. Claim 11 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2015-003235 Application 13/379,668 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A medical imaging apparatus (10) for providing information about an object, comprising: an interventional device (20); a processing device (26); and a display device (28); wherein the image acquisition device (11) is adapted to detect object data (114) from at least one region of interest of an object (18) and to provide the object data to the processing unit (26), the object data being live object data; wherein the interventional device (20) is adapted to detect physiological parameters ( 118) of the object depending on the position of a predetermined area (32) of the interventional device in relation to the object and to provide the physiological parameters to the processing device (26); wherein the processing device (26) is adapted to transform at least a part of the object data (114) into image data (122) and to convert the physiological parameters (118) into physiological data (126); wherein the processing device (26) is adapted to modify at least one image parameter of the image data (122) depending on the physiological data (118) and to thereby transform the image data into modified live image data (130); wherein the processing device (26) is adapted to provide the modified live image data to the display device (28); and wherein the display device (28) is adapted to display a modified live image (134). THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Keidar (EP 1,415,608 A2; Oct. 20, 2003). Claims 2-5, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of various combinations of Keidar, Kirakawa (EP 2 Appeal2015-003235 Application 13/379,668 1,690,491 Al; Dec. 6, 2004), Li (US 2008/0283771 Al; Nov. 20, 2008), Strommer (WO 02/064011 A2; Aug. 22, 2002), Pitris (US 6,564,087 Bl; May 13, 2003), and Donaldson (US 7,569,015 B2; Aug. 4, 2009). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner erred in the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 12 because Keidar fails to disclose "wherein the processing device (26) is adapted to modify at least one image parameter of the image data (122) depending on the physiological data (118) and to thereby transform the image data into modified live image data (130)," and "wherein the interventional device (20) is adapted to detect physiological parameters (118) of the object depending on the position of a predetermined area (32) of the interventional device in relation to the object," as claimed. App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue Keidar does not disclose a spatial relationship between a physiological parameter with an interventional device (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6) and Keidar uses and modifies a 3D volume reconstruction of a heart acquired before the procedure, not a modified live image as claimed. App. Br. 8-9. Keidar discloses "methods for real-time monitoring and mapping of lesions formed by an ablation procedure in the heart." Keidar i-f 1. Indeed, contrary to Appellants' arguments that Keidar fails to disclose a processing device as claimed, Keidar plainly describes "real-time" mapping (see, e.g., Keidar i-fi-11, 20, 52, 53, 71) and is not limited to heart images created in advance of the procedure (see Keidar i-f 22 (describing use of a previously acquired heart map "[i]n some embodiments"). Moreover, nothing in claim 1 excludes use of a previously acquired image in combination with "live 3 Appeal2015-003235 Application 13/379,668 object data," and where Keidar describes previously acquired images, Keidar also describes real-time imaging in addition to use of the previously acquired images. See, e.g., Keidar i-fi-122 ("During the ablation procedure, the reconstruction of the ablation lesion (e.g., responsive to temperature data) is overlaid on the pre-acquired cardiac map in real time."); 64 (describing use maps generated during previous procedures or by imaging modalities and stating that "the location of the catheter is visualized on this map"). We also disagree with Appellants' arguments that Keidar does not disclose an interventional device adapted to detect physiological parameters of an object depending on the position of a predetermined area of the interventional object in relation to the object. See App. Br. 7-8. Similar to Appellants' invention, Keidar describes a position sensor at the distal tip of a catheter that detects both position information and temperature information as the catheter moves during a procedure. Compare, e.g., Keidar i120 ("The catheter preferably comprises a position sensor, a tip electrode, and one or more temperature sensors, all of which are preferably fixed at or near a distal tip of the catheter. . . . During a cardiac ablation procedure, the catheter is inserted into the cardiac chamber, and is used ... to acquire and record position information and ... temperature information generated by the temperature sensors."), with Spec. 12 (the interventional device "is adapted to detect physiological parameters of the object 18 depending on the position of a predetermined area 32, for example, the distal, i.e., the front tip of the needle, of the interventional device 20 in relation to the object 18 and to provide the physiological parameters to the processing device."). Further, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that center on Keidar' s disclosures of "maximum" temperature readings and "average" 4 Appeal2015-003235 Application 13/379,668 impedance to argue Keidar does not disclose real-time imaging (App. Br. 8- 9), as Appellants' arguments ignore Keidar's disclosures of repeated, real- time measurements of temperature and impedance recorded during a procedure (see, e.g., Keidar Fig. 3, i-fi-165-70 (describing the process depicted in Figure 3); Keidar i165 ("For each cardiac cycle [during a procedure], the computer preferably associates the location of tip 44 at the annotation point with the series of measurements, at a synchronization step 72")). Accordingly, having considered the Examiner's rejections in view of each of Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner's rejections. We adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasons consistent with the above and sustain the Examiner's rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 12. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation