KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2020

15127882 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2020)

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.
15/127,882 09/21/2016 DAVID GREGORY REESE 2013P02195WOUS 1063
24737 7590 07/23/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
THOMSON, WILLIAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@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 DAVID GREGORY REESE
____________________

Appeal 2020-000898
Application 15/127,882
Technology Center 3700
____________________
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, the invention is directed to a vacuum splint
with radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging. Spec., Abstract.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce
claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000898
Application 15/127,882

2
1. A device for supporting a body part, comprising:
a sleeve adapted to support the body part, the sleeve
containing a chamber configured to have substantially all air
contained therein evacuated;
a flexible radiofrequency surface receive coil for
magnetic resonance imaging, the flexible radiofrequency
surface receive coil being integrated with the sleeve within the
chamber; and
a port traversing the sleeve, enabling connection of the
flexible radio frequency surface receive coil to a magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) device while the chamber remains
airtight.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Decke (US 5,617,027, issued
Apr. 1, 1997);
II. Claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Decke; and
III. Claims 4, 6, 7, and 11–174 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Decke and Letts et al., The vacuum splint: an
aid in emergency splinting of fractures, CMA Journal vol. 109,
pp. 599–600, (1973).

2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws an indefiniteness rejection from
the Final Office Action. Answer 7; Final Action 2. Also, we combine
rejections relative to the Answer.
3 Although the Examiner rejects claim 8 as anticipated by (and unpatentable
over) Decke (Answer 3–4), claim 8 is canceled (see Appeal Br., Claims
App.).
4 Although the Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable
(Answer 6), these claims are canceled (see Appeal Br., Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-000898
Application 15/127,882

3
ANALYSIS
Rejections I and II—Rejections of claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
1. A device for supporting a body part, comprising:
a sleeve adapted to support the body part, the sleeve
containing a chamber configured to have substantially all air
contained therein evacuated; [and]
a flexible radiofrequency surface receive coil for
magnetic resonance imaging, the flexible radiofrequency
surface receive coil being integrated with the sleeve within the
chamber.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Both the Examiner’s
anticipation and obviousness rejections of independent claim 1 rely on a
finding that Decke discloses a flexible radiofrequency surface receive coil
within a chamber from which air is evacuated, as claimed. Answer 3–4, 7–8.
Specifically, the Examiner determines that Decke discloses an embodiment
in which antenna 2 is disposed within an interior of pillow 8—such that
antenna 2 is “integrated with” pillow 8 “within the chamber” from which air
is evacuated, as claim 1 recites. See Answer 8 (“Decke’s intention is clear in
that the coil is disclosed as being in the pillow and not on the pillow. . . . In
addition to the embodiments shown in the figures, Decke clearly discloses
that the pillow 8 [sic—pocket?] can also be in the vacuum pillow . . . and
larger than the coil arrangement . . . while also being voluminous enough to
fit several elements.”) (citations to Decke omitted).
Based on our review of the record, the Examiner adequately supports
that Decke describes in its Specification an unillustrated embodiment in
which antenna 2 is “integrated with” pillow 8 “within the chamber” from
which air is evacuated, as claimed. The Examiner acknowledges that to the
Appeal 2020-000898
Application 15/127,882

4
extent that Decke illustrates the arrangement of antenna 2 relative to
pillow 8, Deck does not show antenna 2 integrated with pillow 8 within the
evacuated chamber, but instead shows antenna 2 either on the outside of
pillow 8, or in a pocket on the outside of pillow 8. Answer 8 (“While the
embodiments shown in . . . [Decke’s] figures . . . show the coil
arrangement . . . on the outside of the pillow where layers 18,[]20 are also
provided to protect the coil, these are merely some of the disclosed
embodiments of the coil arrangement of Decke.”). Nonetheless, the
Examiner relies on Decke’s column 2, lines 6–10, and 35–37 to support that
Decke discloses a pocket located within pillow 8, which holds antenna 2,
such that antenna 2 is within pillow 8. Id. (“One skilled in the art reading
Decke in its entirety would recognize the meaning of the language used [in
these portions of Decke] . . . as teaching one that the coil arrangement can be
located within the vacuum pillow.”). We agree with the Examiner, based on
our review.
Lines 35–37 of Decke’s column 2 state, in relevant part, “vacuum
pillow 8 is constructed to be voluminous enough so that . . . electronics
box 14 can also be housed therein.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 35–37 (emphasis
added). This portion of Decke appears to describe what Decke’s Figure 2
shows—electronics box 14 within an interior of pillow 8. See id. at Fig. 2.
Decke’s column 2, lines 5–8 state, in relevant part, that while Decke’s
Figure 1 shows that “antenna conductor arrangement 2 is attached to a
surface of . . . vacuum pillow 8, . . . the antenna conductor arrangement can
also be inserted into a pocket in the vacuum pillow 8.” Decke col. 2, ll. 5–8
(emphasis added). Thus, Decke literally states that there is an embodiment
that differs from what Figure 1 illustrates, in which a pocket is in the pillow.
Appeal 2020-000898
Application 15/127,882

5
Conversely, although we have carefully reviewed Appellant’s arguments,
Appellant does not persuade us that Decke describes anything other than a
pocket within pillow 8, into which antenna 2 is inserted. See, e.g., Appeal
Br. 5–8; see, e.g., Reply Br. 4–6.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections of independent claim 1 based on Decke. Appellant does not argue
separately against the anticipation and obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 3, 5, 9, and 10, based on Decke. Thus, we sustain the anticipation
and obviousness rejections of the dependent claims.
Rejection III—Obviousness rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, 11–17
Independent claim 11 includes recitations similar to those discussed
above with respect to independent claim 1. Further, claims 4, 6, 7, and 12–
17 depend from independent claims 1 and 10. With respect to claims 4, 6, 7,
and 11–17, essentially Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in rejecting
these claims for the same reasons that the Examiner errs rejecting claim 1.
Appeal Br. 8–11. Inasmuch as we sustain independent claim 1’s rejections,
we also sustain the rejections of independent claim 11, and dependent claims
4, 6, 7, and 12–17.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections
of each of the claims.

Appeal 2020-000898
Application 15/127,882

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 9, 10 102(a)(1) Decke 1–3, 5, 9, 10
1–3, 5, 9, 10 103 Decke 1–3, 5, 9, 10
4, 6, 7, 11–17 103 Decke, Letts 4, 6, 7, 11–
17

Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–17