Ex Parte Amano

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 9, 2017

13634354 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2017)

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. 13/634,354 09/12/2012 Masaharu Amano 090040-0023 5745 20277 7590 08/11/2017 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20001 EXAMINER HARE, DAVID R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3673 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2017 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): ipdocketmwe @ mwe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASAHARU AMANO Appeal 2016-005225 Application 13/634,354 Technology Center 3600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-005225 Application 13/634,354 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1 and 5—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Representative Claim Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A body section imaging apparatus comprising: [A.] a gantry with an opening having a central axis inclined so that the opening is directed obliquely downward; [B.] a support table disposed obliquely below the gantry, and having an inclined surface for supporting a patient so that the central axis of the opening and a body axis of the patient become parallel with each other; [C.] an imaging position moving mechanism configured to drive the support table to insert the patient into the opening, the imaging position moving mechanism moving the support table along the central axis of the opening-, [D.] a gantry moving mechanism configured to move the gantry along the central axis of the opening-, [E.] struts on which the gantry, the support table, the imaging position moving mechanism, and the gantry moving mechanism are mounted; and [F.] a base configured to rotatably support the struts, and including an imaging angle change mechanism configured to drive the struts to change an angle of the struts relative to a horizontal surface, the gantry, the support table, the imaging position moving mechanism, and the gantry moving mechanism being moved together with the struts, wherein [G.] the gantry is so mounted on the struts that an angle of the central axis of the opening changes together with the changing of the angle of the struts while maintaining a relative angle of the central axis and the struts constant. 2 Appeal 2016-005225 Application 13/634,354 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5—8, 11, 17—20, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Okada (US 4,961,208; iss. Oct. 2, 1990) and Dehner (US 5,574,763; iss. Nov. 12, 1996).1 The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Okada, Dehner, and Fast (US 5,014,688; iss. May 14, 1991). The Examiner rejected claims 10, 12—16, 22, and 23, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Okada, Dehner, and Mastronardi et al. (US 4,422,177; iss. Dec. 20, 1983). Appellant’s Contentions2 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: According to the Examiner, because “[vjertical movement is accomplished by sub-unit [14] and rotational movement is accomplished by sub-unit [15],” Okada’s drive unit 12 can move gantry 1 along inclined center axis 28 (paragraph 39 of the April 29, 2015 Office Action (“Office Action”)). However, it is apparent for a person skilled in the art that Okada’s drive unit 12 cannot move gantry 1 along the inclined center axis 28 because subunits 14 and 15 can only rotate and vertically move gantry 1 (the movement of gantry 1 by subunits 14 and 15 does not include horizontal movement). The Examiner has not yet 1 As to claims 5—25, our decision as to claim 1 is determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 5—25 are not discussed further herein. 2 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other contentions are not discussed herein. 3 Appeal 2016-005225 Application 13/634,354 discharged his burden to show why Okada’s drive unit 12 can move gantry 1 along inclined center axis 28. App. Br. 6. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. As to Appellant’s above contention, we agree. In response to Appellant’s above contention, the Examiner finds: Both sub-unit [14] and [15] can provide movement to gantry [ 1 ] along the central axis [28] and meet the claim language of “a gantry moving mechanism configured to move the gantry along the central axis of the opening.” Furthermore, Okada suggests coordination of gantry movement via drive unit [12] “in such a way that the head of the subject [2] approaches the tunnel [10] in the gantry [1]” (see Okada, column 3, lines [9-13]). In this manner, coordination of vertical and rotational movement of the gantry [1] is suggested to align a subject along the central axis [28]. Ans. 5 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that the vertical and rotational movement of the gantry does align a subject along the central axis. However, claim 1 requires “a gantry moving mechanism configured to move the gantry along the central axis of the opening.'” While Okada reasonably shows aligning a gantry along a central axis, we do not find where Okada teaches moving the gantry along the central axis. 4 Appeal 2016-005225 Application 13/634,354 We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s argument, there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s findings. Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 5—25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 5—25 are reversed. REVERSED 5