Ex Parte Nachabé et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13379668 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

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