Vincent Auvray et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 18, 2021

2019006209 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 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.
14/240,853 02/25/2014 Vincent Maurice Andre Auvray 2011P01095WOUS 5189
24737 7590 02/18/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
DOAN, PHUC N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2021 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 VINCENT MAURICE ANDRE AUVRAY and
RAOUL FLORENT
________________

Appeal 2019-006209
Application 14/240,853
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before LARRY J. HUME, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 19‒35, which are all the claims pending in this
application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

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.
Appeal 2019-006209
Application 14/240,853

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to vascular roadmapping, whereby
images taken at different times relative to a medical intervention are overlaid
for improved visualization. Spec. 1:7‒2:8. Claim 19 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
19. A device for vascular treatment outcome visualization,
comprising:
an interface unit configured to provide first image data of
a region of interest of an internal vascular structure at a first
point in time; and to provide second image data of the region of
interest at a second point in time; wherein, between the first
point in time and the second point in time, a vascular treatment
is applied to the internal vascular structure; wherein the first
point in time relates to a pre-treatment state and the second
point in time relates to a post-treatment state; and wherein,
between the pre-treatment state and the post-treatment state, a
medical intervention has been performed affecting the internal
vascular structure in the region of interest;
a processing unit configured to receive, from the
interface unit, the first image data and the second image data,
and to combine the first image data and the second image data
to generate joint outcome visualization image data by at least
one of superimposing or overlaying the first image data to the
second image data; and
a display unit configured to display the joint outcome
visualization image data.
The Examiner’s Rejection2
Claims 19‒35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Florent (WO 2011/039673 A1; Apr. 7, 2011), Stiles (US 2010/0240986 A1;

2 In the Final Action, the Examiner also rejected claims 19‒35 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act.
Appeal 2019-006209
Application 14/240,853

3

Sept. 23, 2010), and Knowlton (US 2004/0210214 A1; Oct. 21, 2004). Final
Act. 11‒21.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 19 because the
combination of Florent, Stiles, and Knowlton does not teach or suggest
“wherein between the pre-treatment state and the post-treatment state, a
medical intervention has been performed affecting the vascular structure in
the region of interest.” Appeal Br. 17‒19; Reply Br. 4‒8. In particular,
Appellant argues Stiles teaches an imaging method that may be performed
pre-, intra-, or post-operatively for planning or verification, but does not
teach a “medical intervention has been performed affecting the internal
vascular structure in the region of interest,” as recited in claim 19. Reply
Br. 5‒6 (citing Stiles ¶¶ 4, 85).
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Florent teaches medical interventions that include
placing stents or balloons in a vascular structure. Ans. 4 (citing Florent
8:21‒28). The Examiner finds Stiles teaches an imaging method that may be
performed pre-treatment for planning and post-treatment for verification. Id.
(citing Stiles ¶ 85). The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have combined these teachings to use Stiles’s image timing (pre- and post-
treatment) with Florent’s medical intervention that affects a vascular

10‒11. However, the Examiner withdrew this rejection in the Answer in
light of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Ans. 3.
Accordingly, this rejection is not presently before us on appeal. In the event
of future prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether claims
19‒35 are patent-eligible subject matter in light of additional updates to the
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Appeal 2019-006209
Application 14/240,853

4

structure. Id. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it focuses on the
disclosure of Stiles without considering the combined teachings of the
references. The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Appellant’s argument is also unpersuasive because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. That is, claim 19 recites
“between the pre-treatment state and the post-treatment state, a medical
intervention has been performed affecting the internal vascular structure in
the region of interest.” Stiles teaches an imaging method for therapies
affecting a patient’s brain. See, e.g., Stiles ¶¶ 74‒76. The brain includes
internal vascular structure. Appellant’s Specification confirms an
interpretation that includes interventions affecting the brain, referring to
treatments for conditions such as neurovascular aneurisms. Spec. 6:21‒24.
Thus, Stiles also teaches, or at least suggests, medical interventions
“affecting the internal vascular structure in the region of interest.”
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 19.
We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 27 and 28,
for which Appellant relies on the same argument. Appeal Br. 19. We also
sustain the rejections of independent claim 32 and dependent claims 20‒26,
29‒31, and 33‒35, for which Appellant provides no separate argument. Id.

Appeal 2019-006209
Application 14/240,853

5

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19‒35 103(a) Florent, Stiles,
Knowlton
19‒35
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED