Ex Parte Rafaeli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

13683926 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/683,926 1112112012 45436 7590 05/31/2018 DEAN D. SMALL THE SMALL PA TENT LAW GROUP LLC 225 S. MERAMEC, STE. 725T ST. LOUIS, MO 63105 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tzachi Rafaeli 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. 258583-3 (553-l 773US) 2420 EXAMINER SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3737 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/3112018 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): Docket@splglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TZACHI RAF AELI and IRA MICAH BLEVIS Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Tzachi Rafaeli and Ira Micah Blevis ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 31, 2016, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-3 and 5- 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 General Electric Company is the Applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1. 46 and is identified as the real party in interest in Appellants' Appeal Brief(filed Oct. 3, 2016, hereinafter "Br."). Br. 4. Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' invention relates to systems and methods for biopsy guidance in breast imaging with nuclear medicine imaging. Spec. para. 2. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A breast imaging system comprising: a gantry; a breast immobilization plate mounted to the gantry; a biopsy unit configured to be coupled with the breast immobilization plate, the biopsy unit including a support frame, a biopsy guide configured to accept a biopsy needle, and a pair of nuclear medicine imaging detectors, the pair of nuclear medicine imaging detectors in an angled orientation with respect to the breast immobilization plate, the pair of nuclear medicine imaging detectors being two-dimensional pixelated detectors, the biopsy guide disposed between the pair of nuclear medicine imaging detectors, the pair of nuclear medicine imaging detectors defining an opening through which the biopsy needle is configured to pass, wherein the biopsy guide is mounted to the support frame generally parallel to the breast immobilization plate; and a first nuclear medicine imaging detector mounted to the gantry parallel to the breast immobilization plate, the nuclear medicine imaging detector mounted to the gantry and the breast immobilizing plate configured to immobilize a breast between the breast immobilizing plate and the first nuclear medicine imaging detector, the first nuclear medicine imaging detector being a two-dimensional pixelated detector. 2 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over O'Connor et al. (US 2012/0130234 Al, pub. May 24, 2012, hereinafter "O'Connor"), Daghighian (US 8,050,743 B2, iss. Nov. 1, 2011), and Essner et al. (US 2006/0106306 Al, pub. May 18, 2006, hereinafter "Essner"). ANALYSIS Claim 1 The Examiner finds that O'Connor discloses a molecular breast imaging (MBI) system including, inter alia, gantry 104, breast immobilization plate 206 configured to be coupled with a biopsy unit, ultrasound probe 924, top nuclear imaging detector 202 (detector array), and a bottom nuclear detector parallel to plate 206, but fails to disclose "detectors as being angled relative to the immobilization plate." Final Act. 3 (citing O'Connor, paras. 14, 29); see also O'Connor, Figs. 2, 8. Nonetheless, the Examiner relies on Daghighian to disclose multiple detectors that are angled. Final Act. 3 (citing Daghighian, Figs. 13, 15). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art "to have modified O'Connor to replace ... [its] single overhead detector with [Daghighian' s] multiple, angled detectors, in order to more accurately localize the lesion." Id. The Examiner further relies on Essner to disclose a biopsy unit having a support frame and a guide, configured for accepting a biopsy needle, and concurrently mounted to the support frame, in an angled orientation, a nuclear imaging detector and an ultrasound probe. Id. at 4 (citing Essner, 3 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 paras. 45-52, 54--58, Figs. 8, 9, 12, and 16-18). The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify "O'Connor with the further teachings of Essner because doing so would allow for more accurate biopsies that are guide[ d] by structural ultrasound images and functional nuclear medicine images." Id. Appellants argue that O'Connor cannot be modified as proposed by the Examiner "without changing a principle of operation of O'Connor or rendering O'Connor unfit for an intended purpose." Br. 13-14. According to Appellants, the upper detector of O'Connor's device cannot be contemporaneously used with an attachment, such as a biopsy guide, because O'Connor's upper detector is "'out of view and out of operable communication"' when "'auxiliary components"' are used. Br. 14 (quoting O'Connor, paras. 54, 55). Appellants, thus, assert that because O'Connor "only teaches the use of such attachments exclusively from its upper detector," the Examiner's proposed modification is contrary to "the actual text of 0' Connor." Br. 16 (emphasis added). Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because "[ n ]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references ... [Each reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, we agree with the Examiner that "Appellant[ s] ha[ ve] completely ignored the actual combination of references." Examiner's Answer 3 (mailed Jan. 18, 2017, hereinafter "Ans."). As correctly noted by the Examiner, 4 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 O'Connor discloses a support structure and compression plate with interchangeable imaging parts. Daghighian, which Appellant[ s] fail[] to address or discuss entirely, teaches to a skilled artisan that biopsies should be performed with imaging and that multiple angled detectors can be used together on a single structure. Essner also teaches that a biopsy guide and ultrasound transducer should be integrated with a nuclear imaging device. Id. Hence, we agree with the Examiner that "a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to replace the ... single detector of O'Connor with a multiple, angled detector integrated [with a] biopsy guide auxiliary component." Id. at 4. We appreciate Appellants' position that 0' Connor rotates upper detector 102U out of the way in order to replace upper detector 102U with other components. Br. 14. However, such a position is not commensurate with the Examiner's rejection. As noted above, the Examiner's rejection modifies the system of O'Conner by replacing upper detector 102U with Daghighian's multiple, angled detectors mounted concurrently with a biopsy guide (for accepting a biopsy needle) and an ultrasound probe, as taught by Essner. In other words, the Examiner's rejection "integrate[s] said elements into a single modular unit so that user burden could be reduced and a single solution could be presented for needle biopsy and imaging." Final Act. 4. Furthermore, using a detector with other components is not inconsistent with O'Connor, because O'Connor specifically discloses that an MBI detector and an ultrasound imaging (WUS) system 802 can be used "simultaneously or sequentially." O'Connor, paras. 14, 52, Fig. 8. More specifically, O'Connor discloses that when "the breast tissue (not shown) is compressed between the detector head 102L and the paddle 916, an 5 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 ultrasound probe 924 can be acoustically coupled to the compressed breast tissue through the mesh 920" (emphasis omitted), such that "simultaneous acquisition of both ... MBI and WUS images" occurs." O'Connor, paras. 52, 56; see also Final Act. 3. Thus, because O'Connor discloses the use of MBI and WUS components together, the Examiner's modification of O'Connor's system to use an imaging detector and needle guide concurrently based on the teachings of Daghighian and Essner is reasonable. Moreover, the Examiner's modification does not change the principle of operation of O'Connor's MBI system or render it unfit for its intended purpose, as it would still function as a breast imaging system. We agree with the Examiner that, "integration of components and functions into a single device does not change the intended use or mode of operation of the device" of O'Connor. Ans. 4. Appellants further argue that none of the cited references discloses ( 1) "a biopsy guide disposed between a pair of angled detectors"; (2) a support; or (3) "a biopsy guide and angled pair of detectors mounted to such a support." Br. 1 7. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because Appellants do not explain adequately why the Examiner's findings are in error. Although we appreciate that no single reference discloses all the elements, as discussed supra, the Examiner's rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. Here, the Examiner relies on Daghighian to disclose that "multiple assemblies 250 of detector modules 26 can be fixed around the breast 272 of a patient." Daghighian, col. 10, 11. 27-28 (emphasis omitted); Figs. 12, 13. Appellants do not explain adequately why detectors placed around a substantially hemispherical breast in the system of 0' Connor, as 6 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 modified by Daghighian, would not be angled. See also Final Act. 3. Furthermore, the Examiner correctly finds that Essner discloses a biopsy guide located between detectors, because Essner discloses that "hole 36 is provided in the detector array 44 to accommodate a biopsy [guide] apparatus 24 and/or needle 26." Essner, para. 56 (emphasis omitted); Fig. 17; see also Final Act. 4, Ans. 5 (citing Essner, Figs. 15-18). The Examiner is also correct in that Figure 13 of Daghighian also shows a biopsy guide disposed between a pair of angled detectors. Ans. 5. We further agree with the Examiner that Essner discloses a biopsy guide mounted to a support 16, 34 and O'Connor discloses elements mounted to a support structure and gantry. Ans. 5---6 (citing O'Connor, Fig. 9A); see also Essner, para. 55, Fig. 16. As such, because the Examiner finds each of the recited elements and provides sufficient reasoning for combining the references, Appellants do not persuasively apprise us of Examiner error. Lastly, Appellants argue that Essner teaches away from the combination with 0' Connor and Daghighian. According to Appellants, because Essner discloses using its detectors "with collimators pressed directly against the skin of the patient," Essner' s detectors cannot be used "in conjunction with a compression plate, support or guide as described by [ c] laim 1." Br. 1 7. Furthermore, Appellants contend that Id. Because Essner teaches replacing the probe with a needle in a position previously occupied by the probe, Essner necessarily teaches against any contemporaneous use of the probe and needle, let alone the use of angled detectors in conjunction with a guide disposed therebetween that accepts the biopsy needle as set forth by the presently claimed subject matter. 7 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because obviousness does not require that all of the features of the secondary reference be bodily incorporated into the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 ( CCP A 19 81). In this case, the Examiner does not propose to incorporate the detectors of Essner into O'Connor's breast imaging system, as modified by Daghighian, but rather to provide a biopsy needle and guide that passes through detectors, as taught by Essner. We agree with the Examiner that Figures 15-18 of Essner depict detectors 32 used with biopsy needle 26 having guide 24. See Essner, para. 55 ("The hole 36 in the detector provides a conduit for placement of a biopsy apparatus 24 and biopsy needle 26") (emphasis omitted). Moreover, the Examiner is correct in that the same figures of Essner show a detector and biopsy device being concurrently used. Ans. 7. Appellants do not adequately apprise us of Examiner error regarding the Examiner's findings and reasoning to combine the teachings of O'Connor, Daghighian, and Essner. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 as unpatentable over O'Connor, Daghighian, and Essner. Claim 2 Claim 2 recites, in relevant part, "wherein the biopsy guide and at least a portion of the pair of nuclear medicine imaging detectors are disposed a distance from a surface of the object being imaged and the breast immobilization plate." Br. 27 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that because "Essner expressly teaches that its detectors are used with collimators pressed directly against the skin of the 8 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 patient," Essner "teaches directly against having at least a portion of a detector being disposed a distance from the surface of an object being imaged and a breast immobilization plate." Br. 19 (citing Essner, para. 54). As discussed supra, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because the arguments do not address the Examiner's rejection, which does not bodily incorporate the detectors of Essner into the imaging device of O'Connor. Rather, the Examiner modifies O'Connor's molecular breast imaging system to place the detectors of Daghighian at an angle around a patient's breast, "while still accommodating a needle guide [ therethrough] as taught ... [by] Essner." See Final Act. 5. Appellants do not point to any portion of 0' Connor or Daghighian that requires detectors pressed against the patient's skin and, thus, Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error as to this point. Rather, the Examiner is correct in that "[b]oth O'Connor and Daghighian explicitly use detectors in a conventional manner, wherein the detectors are spaced apart from the patient." Ans. 8. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2. Claim 3 Claim 3 recites, in relevant part, "wherein the pair of nuclear medicine imaging detectors and the biopsy guide are mounted to the support frame in a trapezoidal configuration." Br. 27 (Claims App.). The Examiner considers that "a trapezoidal configuration would have been a mere rearrangement of parts ... based on the teachings of Daghig[h]ian that indicates the elements should be arranged to accommodate a subject's anatomy." Final Act. 18 (citing In re Japikse, 181 F .2d 1019 (CCPA 1950)). 9 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 Appellants argue that describing structure as a "rearrangement of parts," fails to explain why a trapezoidal arrangement would have been obvious. Br. 19. According to Appellants, the Examiner's statement is conclusory, given that the Examiner fails to provide an "explanation of how or why it consider a trapezoidal shape to accommodate a subject anatomy, particularly where the cited art addresses similar anatomy with the claimed trapezoidal shape, and where the trapezoidal shape is necessarily distanced from the anatomy." Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because Figure 13 of Daghighian shows detector modules 26 around a patient's breast, and at least some of the detector modules are angled, in order to accommodate the hemispherical shape of the patient's breast. Daghighian, Fig. 13; see also Ans. 8-9. We agree with the Examiner that, "at least some of the detectors in Daghighian actually form a trapezoidal configuration." Ans. 8-9. For example, an annotated Figure 13 Daghighian is shown below: Annotated Figure 13 of Daghighian, reproduced above, shows at least some detectors 26 and biopsy guide 262 inserted through openings 264 forming a trapezoidal arrangement. 10 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 Appellants do not explain adequately why triangulation of some of the detectors and the biopsy guide in Daghighian does not result in a trapezoidal configuration, as called for by claim 3. Compare Annotated Figure 13 of Daghighian with Appellants' Figure 4. We, thus, agree with the Examiner that "a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to rearrange the detectors as claimed because doing so would accommodate a patient's anatomy, such as a [patient's] breast for imaging and triangulation as taught in Daghighian." Ans. 9. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. Claim 6 Appellants argue that the references do "not teach replacement of one detector with a different detector." Br. 20. We do not agree with Appellants' argument because the Examiner is correct in that "[c]laim 6 does not require replacement of elements." Ans. 9. We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We appreciate that Appellants' Specification describes moving detector 56 out of the area above immobilization plate 70 and replacing it with detectors 84, 86. See Spec. para. 34. However, claim 6 does not require replacement of one detector for another, but rather, requires "a second nuclear medicine imaging detector in a parallel orientation with respect to the breast immobilization plate, wherein the second nuclear medicine imaging detector is opposed to the first nuclear medicine imaging detector and parallel to the first nuclear medicine imaging detector." Br. 28 11 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 (Claims App.). O'Connor discloses that "each of the heads 102L, 102U ... may include a corresponding gamma-ray detector 202 ... positioned in a corresponding collimator frame 206." O'Connor, para. 29 (emphasis omitted). Furthermore, Figure 2 of O'Connor shows that detectors 202 are parallel to each other and to frame 206 (immobilization plate). Id.; see also Final Act. 6. Accordingly, Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 6. Claim 7 Claim 7 recites, in relevant part, "wherein the pair of nuclear medicine imaging detectors of the biopsy unit comprises a detector having a higher resolution than the first nuclear medicine imaging detector." Br. 28 (Claims App.). The Examiner determines that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to use a plate-parallel detector having a higher resolution than the overhead detectors, as such feature[ s] amount[] to nothing more than an obvious matter of design choice absent proof of any novel, unexpected result." Final Act. 6. According to the Examiner, "a detector by its very nature has a resolution" and that selecting an appropriate imaging resolution, namely, "a higher or lower resolution would predictably result in a higher or lower resolution image." Ans. 9-10 (citing In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980) andin re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection is unsupported. Br. 20. According to Appellants, the Examiner "provides no explanation as to how or why one skilled in the art would select the detectors of [ c ]laims 1 and 6 as 12 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 a 'design choice,' let alone how one skilled in the art would select the particular resolutions recited by [ c ]laim 7 ." Br. 21. We appreciate the Examiner's position that "selecting appropriate imaging resolutions for a given procedure or medical/surgical situation is common place and well known." Ans. 9-10. However, the Examiner's position is that any resolution of the nuclear imaging detectors in the imaging system of O'Connor, as modified by Daghighian and Essner, would have been obvious. The Examiner has not made any finding as to the particular resolution of the angled detectors and the lower detector 102L. In other words, the Examiner has not explained adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have provided a higher resolution to the angled detectors of O'Connor's MBI system, as modified by Daghighian and Essner, as compared to lower detector 102L. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness is not supported by sufficient factual evidence, and, thus, cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). l\t1erely asserting that the change is an obvious design choice is insufficient. See Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 Fed.Appx. 575, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished). For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7. Claims 9 and 10 Appellants argue that although "[ c ]laims 9 and 10 recite various limitations regarding the interchangeability of detectors, and the use of the second detector only for acquiring coarse lesion information for positioning the biopsy unit," the applied references do "not teach such use of one detector for determining a position of one or more additional detectors." 13 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 Br. 21. Appellants assert that the rejection is improper because the Examiner does not identify any "intended use limitations," nor explains how the references " ... [are] capable of performing said intended uses." Br. 22 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Claim 9 recites, in relevant part, "wherein the biopsy unit and the second nuclear medicine imaging detector are interchangeable." Br. 28 (Claims App.). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because O'Connor discloses a reconfigurable embodiment where "the upper detector head 102U is adapted to be disengageable from the remaining portion of the MBI system to be replaced by another system such as, for example, an ultrasound system" (emphasis omitted) or "a disengageable biopsy element." O'Connor, paras. 14, 49. Hence, the Examiner correctly finds that a biopsy unit and a detector that are disengageable and replaceable by the other of the devices are "interchangeable," as called for by claim 9. See Final Act. 8. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments on this point are not persuasive. Claim 10 recites, in relevant part, that "coarse lesion location information [acquired] from an initial image acquisition" is used "only for subsequent positioning of the biopsy unit on the breast immobilization plate." Br. 28-29 (Claims App.). O'Connor discloses that "the location on the MBI image can be used to determine the location for the biopsy needle to be placed through the guide holes 922." O'Connor, para. 57 (emphasis omitted). Hence, because O'Connor uses the imaging detector to obtain an MBI image and then uses the MBI image to position the biopsy needle, the Examiner correctly finds that in O'Connor the biopsy unit, which includes the biopsy needle, is positioned based on previous (i.e., initial) image 14 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 information, as called for by claim 10. Therefore, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 10. Claim 12 Independent claim 12 requires, inter alia, a "biopsy unit including a support frame, a guide and an ultrasound probe, the guide configured to accept a biopsy needle, the guide and the ultrasound probe concurrently mounted to the support frame." Br. 29 (Claims App.). In addition to the arguments discussed supra in the rejection of claim 1, which we have not found persuasive, Appellants further argue that although Essner discloses a biopsy unit and an ultrasound probe, "Essner, however, merely teaches a hinged connection between a probe and an ultrasound device, and does not teach a support frame to which both a guide and ultrasound probe are mounted concurrently." Br. 23. Essner states that "[Figure] 15 shows radiation detector assembly (probe) 42 comprising ... radiation detector 32 within a tungsten collimator 34." Essner, para. 55 (emphasis omitted). Essner further discloses that "[t]he hole 36 in the detector provides a conduit for placement of a biopsy apparatus 24 and biopsy needle 26" and that "[Figure] 16 shows the radiation detector assembly (probe) 42 of [Figure] 15 attached to a ultrasound detector 10 by a hinged connector 16." Id. (emphasis omitted). Thus, as the Examiner correctly finds, Essner's hinged connector 16 supports ultrasound detector 10 at a first end, and supports guide 24 for needle 26 at a second end. See Ans. 1 O; see also Essner, Fig. 16. Appellants 15 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 do not explain adequately why Essner's hinged connector 16 is not a "suitable support structure" consistent with the Specification. See Spec., para. 38 ("[A]ny suitable support structure may be provided to support the ultrasound probe 11 O"). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12. Claim 17-20 Independent claim 17 recites, "obtaining, with the first and second nuclear medicine imaging detectors, coarse lesion location information ... [,] the pair of nuclear medicine imaging detectors ... acquire increased accuracy lesion location information, wherein the increased accuracy lesion location information has a higher resolution than the coarse lesion location information." Br. 30-31 (Claims App.). The Examiner determines that: [I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the resolutions of the imaging detectors, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Examiner notes that detectors must have resolutions, and a skilled artisan would have found the optimum resolution for each detector based on parameters such as quality of image of the subject matter, cost, and technical limitations. Final Act. 13. For the reasons discussed supra in the rejection of claim 7, we find that the Examiner has not explained adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have provided a higher resolution to the angled 16 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 detectors of O'Connor's 1V1Bl system, as modified by Daghighian and Essner, as compared to parallel detectors 102U, I 02L The mere fact that elements can be modified is not, in itself, a reason for the modification, as an obviousness rejection must explain the reasoning for making such a modification. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-30 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Moreover, we note that the angled detectors in Daghighian provide a more accurate lesion location due to their geometric arrangement surrounding the anatomy of a patient, whereas the angled detector of Essner does it by concurrently using an ultrasound probe. See Daghighian, Abstract, col. 9, 11. 48-50, col. 10, 11. 27-29, Fig. 13; Essner, Abstract. As such, neither Daghighian nor Essner discloses nuclear imaging detectors having different resolutions. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 17, and claims 18----20 depending therefrom. Claims 5, 8, 11, and 13-16 With respect to the rejection of claims 5, 11, and 13-16, which depend directly or directly from independent claims 1 and 12, Appellants do not set forth any other substantive arguments separate from the arguments discussed above. See Br. 12-25. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we, likewise, sustain the rejection of claims 5, 11, and 13-16 over the combined teachings of O'Connor, Daghighian, and Essner. As claim 8 recites a limitation similar to that of claim 7, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 8. 2 2 Claim 8 recites, "the second nuclear medicine imaging detector ... is configured to acquire coarse lesion location information ... [and] the pair of 17 Appeal2017-007813 Application 13/683,926 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-20 is affirmed as to claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9-16 and reversed as to claims 7, 8, and 17-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART nuclear medicine imaging detectors ... acquire increased accuracy lesion location information." Br. 28 (Claims App.). 18