KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2021

2020002613 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2021)

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.
14/787,279 10/27/2015 Laurent Verard 2012P01726WOUS 8090
24737 7590 02/25/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
MEHL, PATRICK M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2021 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 LAURENT VERARD
________________

Appeal 2020-002613
Application 14/787,279
Technology Center 3700

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2020-002613
Application 14/787,279

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”) February 1,
2021, of the Decision on Appeal mailed December 2, 2020 (“Decision”).1
This Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.2 See Decision 12. Appellant contends:
In the Decision on Appeal, the Board fails (1) to recognize the
illogical basis of the Examiner Mehl’s positions supporting the
35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-14 on appeal, (2) to
acknowledge the differences between claims 1, 2 and 4-14 on
appeal and the combination of prior art references Glossop, Xu,
Gao and Frazin as set forth by the Undersigned in the Appeal
Brief and the Reply Brief, and (3) to acknowledge the
differences between claims 1, 2 and 4-14 on appeal and the
combination of prior art references Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin
and Strommer as set forth by the Undersigned in the Appeal
Brief and the Reply Brief.
Req. Reh’g 9.
Upon consideration of Appellant’s Request, we do not modify our
opinion.
REQUIREMENTS OF A REQUEST FOR REHEARING
A request for rehearing “must state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the [Patent Trial
and Appeal Board, hereinafter “Board”].” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). This

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. 3.
2 Claims 1, 2, and 5–14 were rejected in view of the combination of
Glossop, Xu, Gao, and Frazin. Claim 3 was rejected in view of the
combination of Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin, Strommer, and Lesage. Claim 4
was rejected in view of the combination of Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin,
Strommer, and Park. See Final Act. 7 and 14–17; see also Decision 3–4.
Appeal 2020-002613
Application 14/787,279

3
section also states that arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board
and evidence not previously relied upon in the briefs “are not permitted in
the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(4) of this section.” In addition, a request for rehearing is not an
opportunity to express disagreement with a decision without setting forth
points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in
rendering its Decision. The proper course for an Appellant dissatisfied with
a Board decision is to seek judicial review, not to file a request for rehearing
to reargue issues that have already been decided. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145.
ANALYSIS
Addressing Appellant’s statement (1) above, Appellant contends the
Board supported the Examiner’s purportedly illogical “assertion that
Glossop discloses the limitations of independent claims 1 and 13 on appeal,
but yet somehow does not teach the limitation of independent claims 1 and
13 on appeal.” Req. Reh’g 9. Appellant does not identify where the
Examiner expressed such reasoning, nor does Appellant identify where the
Board supported such reasoning. Instead, Appellant contends that the
reliance on Glossop as a basis for the rejection “is erroneous, because
Glossop clearly does not disclos[e] the limitations of independent claims 1
and 13 on appeal if additional prior art must be referenced to teach [the]
limitations of independent claims 1 and 13 on appeal missing from
Glossop.” Req. Reh’g 9. As understood, Appellant’s assertion is premised
on the belief that claims 1 and 13 were rejected based on a reliance solely
upon Glossop, and no other reference in combination therewith. This is not
the case. Instead, claims 1 and 13 were rejected by the Examiner based
upon a combination of the teachings from Glossop, Xu, Gao, and Frazin. See
Appeal 2020-002613
Application 14/787,279

4
Final Act. 7. As such, Appellant is not responding to the Examiner’s rejection,
but instead is arguing Glossop alone. Accordingly, it is not made clear how
the Board might have erred by misapprehending or overlooking this
argument when such argument is, itself, premised on a misreading of the
Examiner’s rejection.
Regarding statements (2) and (3) above, it is sufficient to state that the
Board, in affirming the rejections of these claims, agreed with the Examiner
that Appellant was arguing the art individually, and not their combination.
See Decision 8 (referencing Ans. 7). In the present Request for Rehearing,
Appellant repeats many of the arguments that were previously made and
which were found unpersuasive. Compare Req. Reh’g 10–12 with Appeal
Br. 19–24. For example, Appellant currently contends that Glossop fails to
teach “target element rings, insertion element rings and a representative ring
display.” Req. Reh’g 10. As noted in the Decision, the Examiner
acknowledges “that ‘Glossop does not explicitly teach’ certain limitations
directed to the ‘target element.’” Decision 4 (referencing Final Act. 9).
Instead, the Examiner references Xu and Gao for the requisite teachings.
See Decision 4; Final Act. 9–10. The same can be said regarding Glossop’s
limited teaching regarding the insertion ring (the Examiner more explicitly
relies on Xu and Frazin for such teachings). See Decision 4; Final Act. 10–
11. Thus, Appellant’s present criticism of Glossop on these points is
indicative that Appellant is not responding to the Examiner’s rejections, but
instead is arguing Glossop individually.
In the Request, Appellant also separately addresses Xu, Gao, and
Frazin. See Req. Reh’g 10–12; see also Appeal Br. 19–24. For each
reference, Appellant repeats the contention that that particular reference
Appeal 2020-002613
Application 14/787,279

5
“fails to describe, teach or suggest target element rings, insertion element
rings and a representative ring display.” Req. Reh’g 10–12. As noted
above, the Examiner relied on various additional teachings from Xu, Gao,
and Frazin for disclosing these limitations. In other words, no one reference
provided all that was lacking in Glossop. Thus, Appellant’s present
criticism of Xu, Gao, and Frazin is not commensurate with the Examiner’s
rejections.
Also noted in the present Request is Appellant’s assertion that there
occurs “a simultaneous generation and display,” which Xu, Gao, and Frazin
fail to disclose. Req. Reh’g 10–12. However, as stated in the Decision,
“[f]irst, ‘simultaneous’ is not a recited limitation; second, the ‘generation’
function is primarily taught by Glossop.” Decision 7. Despite such
clarification by the Board, Appellant presently repeats this argument by
continuing to state that Xu, Gao, and Frazin fail to teach “simultaneous
generation.” Req. Reh’g 10–12. This can hardly be said to be an argument
that the Board misapprehended or overlooked.
Appellant also separately addresses Strommer contending that this
reference fails to teach the additional limitations of dependent claim 3. Req.
Reh’g 12. However, the Examiner relied on both Strommer and Lesage for
the additional teachings of claim 3. Final Act. 14–15. Despite both the
Examiner (Ans. 14) and the Board (Decision 11) noting Appellant’s silence
regarding Lesage, Appellant again focuses solely upon Strommer and
disregards Lesage. See Req. Reh’g 12.
Regarding Strommer, Appellant contends that Strommer fails to teach
a “target element cylinder.” Req. Reh’g 12. Yet, Appellant fails to explain
how the Examiner erred by relying on Strommer for “teaching ‘the target
Appeal 2020-002613
Application 14/787,279

6
element comprising a tube-like element.’” Decision 11 (quoting Final Act
15). Indeed, paragraph 59 of Strommer states “[t]he term ‘lumen’ herein
below, refers to an organic tubular structure of the human patient . . . such as
an artery, vein.” Strommer further teaches a graphical user interface (GUI)
as including “a three-dimensional image 106 of a lumen.” Strommer ¶ 64;
see also Decision 11. Thus, Appellant’s repetitive focus on Strommer on
this point is not indicative that the Board misapprehended or overlooked that
argument. It appears, instead, that Appellant is merely repeating arguments
already presented and addressed. As noted above, the proper course for an
Appellant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek judicial review, not to
file a request for rehearing to reargue issues that have already been decided.
See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145.
Additionally, it is noted that while Appellant addresses each of
Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin, and Strommer (see Appeal Br. 10–12), Appellant
does not challenge the Examiner’s logic for combining these references. In
other words, there is no indication that Appellant challenges the Examiner’s
reasoning, or contends that such reasoning lacks rational underpinning,
which was employed to reach a conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not informed
of an argument that the Board may have misapprehended or overlooked.

DECISION
Accordingly, Appellant’s Request for Rehearing has been granted to
the extent that the Board reconsidered its Decision in light of the statements
made in this Request, but is denied with respect to the Board making any
modification to the Decision.
Appeal 2020-002613
Application 14/787,279

7

Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Denied
Granted
1, 2, 5–14 103 Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin 1, 2, 5–14
3 103 Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin,
Strommer, Lesage
3
4 103 Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin,
Strommer, Park
4
Overall
Outcome
1–14

Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–14 103 Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin 1, 2, 5–14
3 103 Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin,
Strommer, Lesage
3
4 103 Glossop, Xu, Gao, Frazin,
Strommer, Park
4
Overall
Outcome
1–14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

DENIED