11101154 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2013)

Ex Parte Vecerina et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 4, 2013

11101154 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2013)

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. 11/101,154 04/07/2005 Ivan Vecerina 0115-051055 2718 7590 04/04/2013 William H. Logsdon THE WEBB LAW FIRM 700 Koppers Building 436 Seventh Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1845 EXAMINER GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2013 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 IVAN VECERINA, JURJEN ZOETHOUT, and MURIELLE LAUNAY ________________ Appeal 2011-000758 Application 11/101,154 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000758 Application 11/101,154 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Ivan Vecerina, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1 and 11. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellants’ claimed invention relates to an interactive medical training system. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for training a user in a medical procedure in a simulated surgical interaction in a training session within a simulated environment comprising the steps of: providing an interactive computer system with a virtual geometrical representation of at least one organ and at least one instrument in the simulated surgical interaction within the simulated environment, wherein the instrument is operated by the user in the training session, wherein the representation of at least one organ part of the virtual organ to be treated is covered with at least one graphical identification marker, wherein the computer system comprises a table stored in memory comprising predefined situations arising within the medical procedure predefined through positions of the at least one instrument, positions of the at least one organ, the logical sequence of steps to be executed within said medical procedure, one or more different aspect values for the one or more graphical identification markers and one or more assessment values for said situation; changing the aspect of one or more graphical identification markers according to the stored value in said table for the predefined situation upon interaction of the user with the at least one organ and the at least one instrument; and 1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 15, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 8, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 8, 2010). Appeal 2011-000758 Application 11/101,154 3 storing the corresponding assessment value of the training session in a history log table within the computer system. The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Dormond US 4,839,822 Jun. 13, 1989 Haakonsen US 6,747,672 B1 Jun. 8, 2004 Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dormond. Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dormond and Haakonsen. FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the findings of fact which appear in the Analysis below are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). ANALYSIS Anticipation based on Dormond Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-11 We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Dormond discloses a “virtual geometrical representation” or “virtual representation” of “at least one instrument in the simulated surgical interaction within the simulated environment, wherein the instrument is operated by the user in the training session,” as required by claims 1 and 11 respectively. Dormond (Abstr. and Col. 5, ll. 10-16) discloses that the user of an expert system that suggests treatments for a patient with physical Appeal 2011-000758 Application 11/101,154 4 trauma may select, from a menu of primary bones in the human body, the particular bone which has been fractured by controlling a cursor by any well-known input techniques (including touch-screen, mouse, or cursor keys). We disagree with the Examiner’s contention that the use of a conventional cursor disclosed by Dormond may reasonably be deemed to be the use of a virtual representation of an “instrument in the simulated surgical interaction” as claimed. See Ans. 4 and 12. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the Specification (3-7 and Fig. 1) that a virtual representation of an “instrument in the simulated surgical interaction” is not drawn to Dormond’s use of a conventional cursor to point to a location on a screen to advance to a following screen or to return to a prior screen. See Dormond, Figs. 2-7. Accordingly, we find that Dormond’s use of a cursor does not disclose the use of a cursor as a “virtual representation” of an “instrument in the simulated surgical interaction,” as claimed. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-11 as anticipated by Dormond. Obviousness based on Dormond and Haakonsen Claims 3 and 7 The Examiner relies upon Dormond’s disclosure of an “instrument in the simulated surgical interaction” in support of the obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 7. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 7 as unpatentable over Dormond and Haakonsen for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2011-000758 Application 11/101,154 5 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have overcome the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dormond. We further conclude that Appellants have overcome the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dormond and Haakonsen. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11. REVERSED hh