Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 5, 2016

12808792 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/808,792 11/17/2010 Sophia Huai Zhou
24737 7590 03/25/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2007P01949WOUS 5533
EXAMINER
FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SOPHIA HUAI ZHOU, ALEJO COSTA RIBALTA,
RAINER SCHLUESS, and BERND WILM
Appeal2013-007940
Application 12/808,792
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sophia Huai Zhou et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-007940
Application 12/808,792
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed subject matter "relates to electrocardiographic
(ECG) monitoring systems and, in particular, to real-time ST monitoring
system[ s] which automatically identify, by means of an anatomically-
oriented presentation, a culprit coronary artery which has caused an acute
myocardial infarction." Spec. 1, 11. 4-9. Of those claims before us on
appeal, claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An ECG monitoring system which identifies a culprit
coronary artery in a subject patient heart associated with an
acute myocardial infarction comprising:
a set of electrodes adapted for acquisition of electrical
activity of the heart from different vantage points in relation to
the heart;
an ECG acquisition module coupled to the electrodes
which acts to produce enhanced electrode signals;
an ECG processor responsive to the electrode signals
which acts to combine electrode signals for the production of a
plurality of lead signals measuring electrical activity of the
heart from different vantage points, wherein the ECG processor
detects ST elevation in lead signals; and
a display responsive to detected ST elevation which
displays each of a plurality of ST elevation data graphically in
relation to anatomical lead locations,
wherein the graphical display indicates the identity of a
suspect culprit coronary artery or branch associated with an
acute ischemic event.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence:
Karlsson
Wellens
Bojovic
US 6,038,469 Mar. 14, 2000
US 2006/0264770 Al Nov. 23, 2006
US 7,266,408 B2 Sept. 4, 2007
2
Appeal2013-007940
Application 12/808,792
REJECTIONS 1
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1and10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Wellens.2
2. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wellens
and Karlsson.
3. Claims 2-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wellens
and Bojovic.
ANALYSIS
The anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 is
predicated on the Examiner's finding that W ellens discloses a display which
"displays a plurality of ST elevation data graphically in relation to
anatomical lead locations." Final Act. 3 (citing Wellens, Figs. 6-10, paras.
33, 68). In particular, the Examiner found that Figure 6 of Wellens discloses
a graphical display of ST data in text form that "clearly relates to a plurality
of ST elevation data in relation to their anatomical lead locations as seen in
the chart." Id. at 4. The Examiner interpreted data displayed "graphically"
as meaning "a collection of data points stored in a computer memory that is
projected or displayed in a visual manner on a screen." Ans. 4. According
to the Examiner, "[t]ext, whether considering the table as a whole, or the
1 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 2-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite and also withdrew an obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 10. Ans. 3.
2 In the Final Action, claims 2-9 were rejected as anticipated by Wellens.
See Final Act. 3-6. The Examiner entered Appellants' After-Final
Amendment and explained that the amended claims are unpatentable over
Wellens and Bojovic. See Adv. Act. 1-2. Accordingly, we understand the
anticipation rejection of claims 2-9 to have been recast, due to the
amendment to the claims, as an obviousness rejection. Id.; see Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2013-007940
Application 12/808,792
individual letters, clearly comprises a graphical display as it is displaying
shapes on the screen, e.g. a letter or the lines used to delineate the rows and
columns of the table as seen in Figure 6" of Wellens. Id. at 4-5.
Appellants argue that Figure 6 of Wellens "illustrates data that is
arranged in a tabular format and not graphically," and does not "provide any
relation between ST elevation data and anatomical lead locations." Br. 9.
According to Appellants, the Examiner's interpretation of "graphically" to
include any textual display is unreasonable because the Specification
"repeatedly and consistently describes the graphical display of ST elevation
data as arrayed according to their actual spatial situation." Id. at 10-11
(citing Spec. 13-16, Figs. 10-18).
The Specification describes Appellants' invention as presenting ST
segment information in a graphical display in relation to the anatomy of a
patient. Spec. 4, 11. 20-22. In particular, "[t]he anatomically-oriented
display shows at a glance an indication of the culprit coronary artery and the
size of the myocardial region with the infarct or injury." Id. at 11. 26-29.
Figure 10 of the Specification "illustrates an anatomically-oriented graphical
display for culprit coronary artery identification in accordance with the
principles of the present invention." Id. at 5, 11. 29-32. According to the
Specification, the graphic display "includes axes for the signals which are
oriented in relation to the limb positions." Id. at 14, 11. 22-23. The
Specification further describes Figure 10 as showing that "points plotted on
the lead axes are connected by lines and the area inside the lined shape 112
is colored or shaded as shown in the drawing" so that a clinician can see at a
glance the ST values delineating a shape. Id. at 15, 11. 16-21. "In
accordance with the principles of the present invention, the locations of the
4
Appeal2013-007940
Application 12/808,792
ECG-derived shapes in the anatomically related graphics are used to visually
identify suspect culprit coronary arteries." Id. at 16, 11. 24-27.
When read in light of these descriptions in the Specification, one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim language calling for
display of ST elevation data "graphically in relation to anatomical lead
locations" or "graphically in relation to anatomical locations" to call for an
anatomically-oriented display of the ST elevation data such that the clinician
can divine the relation between the ST elevation data and anatomical lead
locations or anatomical locations at a glance. Br. 9-10 (arguing that to
divine a relation between ST elevation data and anatomical lead locations
from Figure 6 of W ellens "would require some a priori knowledge of the
lead locations, e.g. I II III A VR, with respect to the anatomy"). We agree
with Appellants that the Examiner's interpretation of graphically displaying
ST elevation data in relation to anatomical lead locations or anatomical
locations as being broad enough to encompass W ellens' s tabular display of
textual ST data is unreasonably broad when the claim limitation is read in
light of the Specification. See id. at 10-11.
The Examiner alternatively found that Figure 7 of Wellens teaches a
graphical display of a plurality of ST elevation data because, " [a ]lthough it is
a single vector, the vector is determined based on analysis of the multiple ST
elevation lead data points and presents to the user a representation of the
entirety of those points that clarifies the location and extent of an infarct."
Final Act. 4. We agree with Appellants that the graphical display shown in
Figure 7 of Wellens does not "display each of a plurality of ST elevation
data" graphically in relation to anatomical lead locations. Br. 10. To the
extent that the graphic displayed in Figure 7 of Wellens may be based upon
5
Appeal2013-007940
Application 12/808,792
a plurality of ST elevation data, the display is of a single vector and not a
display of each of the plurality of ST elevation data as called for in the
claims.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1and10, or dependent claims 11-14, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wellens. The Examiner does not rely on Bojovic in the
rejection of claims 2-9 to overcome the deficiency in Wellens as discussed
supra. Adv. Act. 2. Independent method claim 15 contains a step of
"displaying each of a plurality of the ST elevation data graphically in
relation to anatomical locations of the subject" that is similar to the display
limitation in claims 1 and 10. Br. 22 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not
rely on Karlsson in the rejection of claim 15 to overcome the deficiency in
Wellens as discussed supra. Final Act. 7. Accordingly, for the same
reasons as discussed for independent claims 1 and 10, we likewise do not
sustain the rejections of claims 2-9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
cda
6