Stryker Corporation

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2008

No. 78690726 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2008)

Mailed:
Jan. 30, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Stryker Corporation
________

Serial No. 78690726
_______

Liane L. Churney of Flynn, Thiel, Boutell & Tanis, P.C. for
Stryker Corporation.

S. Michael Gaafar, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
116 (Michael W. Baird, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Bucher, Grendel and Taylor, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Grendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Stryker Corporation, applicant herein, seeks
registration on the Principal Register of the mark COUPLED
VISUALIZATION (in standard character form) for goods
identified in the application as “surgical image guidance
software; computer hardware; surgical cameras,” in Class 9,
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 78690726
2
and “surgical instruments, namely, endoscopes, flexible
endoscopes, and endoluminal surgical tools,” in Class 10.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has issued a final
refusal to register applicant’s mark on the ground that the
mark is merely descriptive of the goods identified in the
application. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C.
§1052(e)(1).
Applicant has appealed the final refusal. After
careful consideration of the evidence of record and the
arguments of counsel, we affirm the refusal to register.
A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services, within the meaning of Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1), if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an
ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function,
purpose or use of the goods or services. See, e.g., In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and
In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215,
217-18 (CCPA 1978). A term need not immediately convey an
idea of each and every specific feature of the applicant’s
goods or services in order to be considered merely
descriptive; it is enough that the term describes one

1 Serial No. 78690726, filed on August 11, 2005. The application
is based on applicant’s asserted bona fide intention to use the
mark in commerce. Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C.
§1051(b).

Ser. No. 78690726
3
significant attribute, function or property of the goods or
services. See In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB
1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
Whether a term is merely descriptive is determined not in
the abstract, but in relation to the goods or services for
which registration is sought, the context in which it is
being used on or in connection with those goods or
services, and the possible significance that the term would
have to the average purchaser of the goods or services
because of the manner of its use. That a term may have
other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
Moreover, it is settled that “[t]he question is not whether
someone presented with only the mark could guess what the
goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether
someone who knows what the goods or services are will
understand the mark to convey information about them.” In
re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002).
See also In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d
1537 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders Association of
Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313 (TTAB 1990); and In re American
Greetings Corporation, 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985).
Applying these principles in the present case, we find
as follows.
Ser. No. 78690726
4
The Trademark Examining Attorney has made of record
several dictionary definitions of “visualize” or
“visualization” which establish that the term has a
specific meaning in the medical context in which
applicant’s goods obviously are used. The MSN Encarta
Dictionary defines “visualize” as: MEDICINE make image of
internal organs: to produce an image of an internal organ
or other part of the body by using x-rays or other means
such as magnetic resonance imaging. Dorland’s Illustrated
Medical Dictionary defines “visualization” as: “the act of
viewing, or of achieving a complete visual impression of an
object, as by radiography.”
The Trademark Examining Attorney also has made of
record a definition of “couple” from the Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary: “to connect for consideration
together.”
Based on these definitions, we find that a “coupled
visualization,” in the medical context readily would be
understood to denote visualizations or images which are
coupled so they can be considered together. The Trademark
Examining Attorney has made of record a printout from
applicant’s website, which in pertinent part describes
applicant’s goods as follows (emphasis added):
Ser. No. 78690726
5
The Stryker Trauma Navigation System was
developed to help surgeons achieve precise
implant placement during trauma surgical
procedures. The initial benefits of this
revolutionary new system can provide the user
are: ... real-time navigation of basic trauma
instrumentation on multiple fluoroscopic views...

The term “coupled visualization” directly describes this
“multiple fluoroscopic views” feature of applicant’s goods.
In addition, the mere descriptiveness of COUPLED
VISUALIZATION as applied to applicant’s goods is apparent
from applicant’s own explanation (in its brief) of the
nature and features of the goods (emphasis added):

Applicant’s surgical system is comprised of the
above goods [identified in the application], and
is intended for use by a surgeon during an
operating procedure to provide the surgeon with
additional information above and beyond what can
simply be gathered with an endoscope alone. More
specifically, an endoscope is inserted into a
small opening made in the patient for the purpose
of producing an image of the interior of the
patient’s body. This image is typically
transmitted to a monitor and displayed thereon so
that the surgeon can see what the endoscope
“sees” for the purpose of diagnosis and
treatment. The instant system, however, in
addition to this conventional function of an
endoscope, goes much further. In this regard,
the patient image generated by the endoscope is
compared to a library of stored anatomical images
(obtained by various modalities) via Applicant’s
software. The image generated by the endoscope
and the stored image or images with which the
endoscopic image is compared are not ever
visually combined or coupled with one another on
a display. Instead, after the above comparison
is made, Applicant’s system shows the endoscopic
Ser. No. 78690726
6
image on a monitor in the operating room along
with markers or prompts which provide guidance
and information to the surgeon for the purpose of
diagnosis, navigation and/or treatment. Thus,
the stored anatomical images are utilized to help
the surgeon identify, diagnose and treat what the
endoscope is “showing” the surgeon.

Thus, applicant’s goods allow the surgeon to consider
and compare two or more images or visualizations of the
area being treated, in order to aid in the performance of
the surgery. Even if (as applicant contends) the two
visualizations or images are not displayed together on the
monitor at the same time, they nonetheless are “coupled” in
that they allow the surgeon to compare and consider both
images during the course of the surgical procedure.
Likewise, the “markers and prompts” displayed on the
monitor presumably are derived or transferred from the
previously stored images to which the endoscopic image is
compared.
More importantly, the particular configuration of
applicant’s goods that is set forth in the explanation
quoted above, especially the asserted fact that the
visualizations are not displayed simultaneously on a single
monitor, is not dispositive. Applicant’s goods, as
identified in the application, do not limit the goods to
any particular configuration but instead describe the goods
Ser. No. 78690726
7
quite broadly. Nothing in the identification of goods
would preclude applicant from configuring the system in
such a way that the two visualizations are viewed together.
For these reasons, we find that COUPLED VISUALIZATION
immediately describes a key feature of the goods, i.e.,
that the goods allow the surgeon to consider and compare
two or more images or visualizations during the course of
surgery.
Furthermore, we note that the evidence of record
includes materials, submitted by applicant itself, that
demonstrate merely descriptive use of COUPLED VISUALIZATION
in the context of endoscopy. The written materials from a
tutorial entitled “Advanced Virtual Medicine: Techniques
and Applications for Virtual Endoscopy” include the
following text (emphasis added):

In contrast, virtual endoscopy is a convenient
alternative [to traditional endoscopy]. It is
based on a 3D scan of the respective body region.
Examples for these scans are CT (Computed
Tomography) scans of the abdominal area, MRI
(Magnet Resonance Imaging) scans of the head, or
rotational angiography of blood vessels at the
skull base. Based on the resulting volumetric
data, the organs of interest are visualized and
inspected from interior (“endo”) view-points.
Depending on the original endoscopic procedure,
which is mimicked by virtual endoscopy, different
goals can be achieved. These goals range from:
... intra-operative navigation: currently, the
position of a “real” endoscope is tracked by an
infrared-based 3D navigation system and mapped
Ser. No. 78690726
8
into the image stack acquired previous to the
operation. With virtual endoscopy, this position
and orientation information can be exploited to
provide a coupled visualization of optical and
virtual endoscopy. In particular the virtual
endoscopy can provide information which is not
available to the optical endoscope, due to the
limited flexibility and field of view.

Applicant’s goods, as broadly identified in the
application, would encompass the “traditional” endoscopy
system that the tutorial article says is currently in use,
as well as the apparently more advanced “virtual endoscopy”
system described by the tutorial article. It is clear from
all of the evidence placed into the record by the Trademark
Examining Attorney that rapid technological advances in
imaging equipment and software algorithms are resulting in
significant strides in the field of “image guided surgery.”
Precise, real-time surgical navigation is made possible
because of the consolidation of multiple image overlay
systems. The major benefits are tied to superimposed
images from multimodalities, not the possibility of
multiple images on a single video display monitor. This
may entail a pairing of images from a live, endoscopic
camera image with recently-stored, advanced auto
segmentation images, as described by applicant. Whether
characterized as a single fusion of various automatic
images, side-by-side compound images, panoramic views, or
Ser. No. 78690726
9
simultaneous images from different vantage points, the term
“Coupled Visualization” is descriptive because of the
nature of the imaging technologies that applicant uses, not
whether or not the product includes multiple views in a
single display.
In short, a key feature of applicant’s goods as they
are identified in the application is that they allow the
surgeon to consider and compare two visualizations of the
patient during surgery. COUPLED VISUALIZATION directly and
immediately describes this feature of the goods. The mark
is merely descriptive of the goods, and therefore it is
unregistrable under Section 2(e)(1).
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.