Ex Parte Vaillant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2016

13191313 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/191,313 07/26/2011
68174 7590 11/18/2016
GE HEALTHCARE
c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Regis Yves Vaillant
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.
249305-1 (GEMS :0462) 3846
EXAMINER
PENG, BO JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3768
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REGIS YVES VAILLANT, ADRIAN FRANCIS WARNER,
CLAUDIO PATRICIO MEJIA, and ION PETROS PAPP AS
Appeal2014-005966
Application 13/191,313
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Regis Yves Vaillant et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office
Action, dated August 14, 2013 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-14 and 23-
25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as General Electric Company.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005966
Application 13/191,313
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to a "system and method
for integrating multiple data sources into an X-ray image referential." Spec.,
Title. Claims 1 and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for integrating multiple data sources into
an X-ray image referential, comprising:
generating an X-ray image of a subject;
collecting information from sensors of a catheter disposed
within the subject;
generating the X-ray image referential on a coordinate
system by merging a model of an anatomy and the collected
information from the sensors of the catheter to the X-ray image,
wherein the X-ray image referential includes a display of a trace
of the catheter, wherein the trace comprises a path traveled by
the catheter through the subject and selectable points along the
path, and wherein each selectable point is associated with the
collected information gathered when the catheter was at the
respective selectable point along the path; and
displaying the X-ray image referential on a display.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence:
Weese
Maschke
Webler
Brunner
Rahn
US 2005/0288577 Al
US 2007 /0027390 Al
US 2007/0055142 Al
US 2007/0064001 Al
US 2007/0167700 Al
2
Dec. 29, 2005
Feb. 1, 2007
Mar. 8, 2007
Mar. 22, 2007
July 19, 2007
Appeal2014-005966
Application 13/191,313
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action included the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 3-7, 13, 14, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maschke and Weese.
2. Claims 2, 9, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maschke, Weese, and Rahn.
3. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maschke,
Weese, and Brunner.
4. Claims 10-12, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maschke, Weese, and W ebler.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection
Appellants argue the claims subject to the first ground of rejection as a
group. Appeal Br. 5-9. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for
the group. Claims 3-7, 13, 14, and 23 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
With regard to independent claim 1, the Examiner found that Maschke
teaches integrating multiple data sources into an X-ray referential, "wherein
the X-ray image referential includes a display of a trace of the catheter."
Final Act. 3 (citing Maschke, paras. 8, 12, 29). The Examiner found that
Maschke "fail[s] to teach wherein the trace comprises a path traveled by the
catheter through the subject and selectable points along the path, and
wherein each seletable [sic] point is associated with the collected
information gathered when the catheter was at the respective selectable point
3
Appeal2014-005966
Application 13/191,313
along the path." Id. at 3-4. The Examiner found that Weese teaches these
missing features, and determined that it would have been obvious to modify
Maschke "to include the tracking features of Weese." Id. at 4 (citing Weese,
paras. 13-20); see also Ans. 11-13 (citing Weese, paras. 8, 13-21, 25, 35,
and 39, and Fig. 2).
Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding that Weese' s display of a
"roadmap" of the vessel constitutes a trace comprising a path traveled by the
catheter through the subject. Appeal Br. 7-8 (arguing that "Weese merely
discloses a distance map of a blood vessel that includes a starting point and
an end point of the vessel and the current position (i.e., distance) of the
probe or instrument relative to the starting point and end point"). Appellants
further contest the Examiner's finding that Weese discloses a trace including
selectable points along the trace, and wherein each selectable point is
associated with the collected information gathered when the catheter was at
the respective selectable point along the path. Id. at 8; see also Reply Br. at
3--4 (arguing that Weese is silent with regard to being able to select a point
on the distance map of the vessel to access or display the image collected at
that point).
Weese discloses a method and system for creating a "roadmap" of a
vessel by moving a sensor probe, such as an intravascular ultrasound system
(IVUS) probe attached to the end of a catheter, through a vessel and storing
a sequence of local cross-section images of the vessel, which are obtained by
the probe operating at a constant imaging rate as the probe is moved through
the vessel at a constant speed. Weese, paras. 8, 10, 11, 13, 35, and Fig. 1.
4
Appeal2014-005966
Application 13/191,313
This step produces images generated at lengthwise distances d along the
vessel that are all the same distance apart. Id., para. 35. These local images
are stored in memory. Id., para. 36. As shown in Figure 1, Weese's display
6 shows a blood vessel and a roadmap of the vessel between starting point x1
and end point x2 through which the catheter traveled. Weese' s display
further depicts points along this roadmap at which image captures were
taken by the probe as the catheter traveled through the subject. As such, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that this roadmap disclosed in Weese is "a
trace comprising a path traveled by the catheter through the subject," as
recited in claim 1.
Weese further discloses that the catheter and probe can then be moved
through the vessel again and additional local cross-section images of the
vessel are made with the probe at the respective points at which the probe is
located at the time. Id., para. 39. A data-processing unit then compares a
current cross-section image of the vessel with the stored cross-section
images taken during the first pass of the probe through the vessel, and
selects a stored image that most closely resembles the current image to
determine the position of the probe within the vessel. Id., paras. 10, 22-25,
40--41. The data-processing unit shows on a display a model of the probe
and a model of the stent at the corresponding position on the "roadmap"
model of the vessel. Id., paras. 14, 41. Thus, as described above, during a
second insertion of the catheter into the patient, Weese' s system uses a
current image taken by the probe to select one of the stored images
(collected information) gathered when the catheter was at a particular point
5
Appeal2014-005966
Application 13/191,313
along the path. Any point along Weese' s roadmap for which a local image
is stored (i.e., represented by the lines in display 6 of Figures 1 and 2 that are
taken at a distanced apart) are selectable points along the path, e.g., the
points are selected by moving probe 3 along the path a second time. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that the points along the roadmap at which
images were captured are selectable points "associated with the collected
information gathered when the catheter was at the respective selectable point
along the path" as called for in claim 1. Ans. 13.
The Examiner's findings as to the scope and content of Weese are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellants have not
presented any arguments that demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1. Claims 3-7, 13, 14, and 23 fall with claim 1. As such, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 13, 14, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over iviaschke and Weese.
Second through Fourth Grounds of Rejection
Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for the first ground
of rejection as to the asserted deficiencies in Weese as the basis for seeking
reversal of the second through fourth grounds of rejection. Appeal Br. 9-13
(arguing that neither Rahn, nor Brunner, nor W ebler cures the deficiencies of
Maschke and Weese). We are not persuaded of error in the remaining
grounds of rejection for the same reasons provided supra in our analysis of
claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 2, 9, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Maschke, Weese, and Rahn,
6
Appeal2014-005966
Application 13/191,313
claim 8 as unpatentable over Maschke, Weese, and Brunner, and claims 10-
12, 24, and 25 as unpatentable over Maschke, Weese, and W ebler.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 and 23-25 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7