Ex Parte Bartal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

12518172 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
12/518,172 06/08/2009 Meir Bartal 2007P02608WOUS 2791
22116 7590 09/29/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
PENG, BO JOSEPH
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEIR BARTAL, JAN BOESE, ASSAF GOVARI,
MATTHIAS JOHN, ASSAF PREISS, and NORBERT RAHN,
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision2 rejecting claims 57-76. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
and Biosense Webster, Inc. Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated September 10, 2013
(“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 57 and 76 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 57,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
57. A method for visually assisting a catheter application on a
heart of a patient, comprising:
acquiring an image of the patient by a C-arm X-ray device;
acquiring electroanatomical mapping data of the patient by
an electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system;
determining a coordinate transformation between a
coordinate system of the C-arm x-ray device and a coordinate
system of the electromagnetic position-detection and mapping
system based on the acquired image and the electroanatomical
mapping data before the catheter application;
calibrating the C-arm X-ray device and the
electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system in
relation to each other based on the coordinate transformation;
determining a position of the patient during the acquisition
of the image and during the acquisition of the electroanatomical
mapping data; and
assigning the determined positions3 of the patient to the
image and the electroanatomical mapping data.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 57, 68-71, 73, 74, and 76 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boese (US 2005/0251028 Al;
published Nov. 10, 2005) and Verard (US 2004/0097805 Al; published May
20, 2004).
Notably, there is no antecedent basis for the plural “positions.”
2
3
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
II. Claim 58 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boese, Verard, Govari (US 2004/0102696 Al; published
May 27, 2004), and Gilboa (US 6,574,498 Bl; issued June 3, 2003).
III. Claims 59-63 and 67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Boese, Verard, and Foley (US 2005/0085714 Al;
published Apr. 21, 2005).
IV. Claims 64-66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boese, Verard, Foley, and Mitschke (US 2004/0013240
Al; published Jan. 22, 2004).
V. Claim 72 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boese, Verard, and Collins (US 6,535,574 Bl; issued
Mar. 18, 2003).
VI. Claim 75 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boese, Verard, Fuimaono (US 2007/0287902 Al;
published Dec. 13,2007).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 57, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Boese teaches acquiring an image of the patient by a C-arm X-ray device
(Final Act. 3 (citing Boese ^ 11)) and acquiring electroanatomical mapping
data of the patient by an electromagnetic position-detection and mapping
system {id. (citing Boese ^ 4)). The Examiner also finds that Boese teaches
determining a coordinate transformation between a coordinate system of the
C-arm x-ray device and a coordinate system of the electromagnetic position-
3
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
detection and mapping system, and calibrating the C-arm x-ray device and
the electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system in relation to
each other based on the coordinate transformation. Id. (citing Boese 36,
37).
The Examiner also determines that an example of a “catheter
application,” as claimed, “is catheter ablation.” Final Act. 3 (citation
omitted); see also Ans. 17-18 (“FIG. 1 shows a device comprising a C-arm
X-ray device 1 and an electromagnetic position-detection and mapping
system 2, which device is used for visually assisting a catheter application
on a living being, for example, a catheter ablation on the heart H of the
patient P.”) (citing Spec. ^ 4[0]). The Examiner finds that Boese discloses
determining the coordinate transformation before a catheter application (i.e.,
catheter ablation), because Boese teaches that “a translation matrix (which is
4
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
a coordinate transformation) [representing] the relationship in the 2D-3D4 5 6
registration” is determined before ablation.5,6 Ans. 18 (Boese 26-27).
Appellants argue that, in Boese, landmark based registration “is
carried out after the catheter is guided into the ventricle to be treated,” and
not before, as claimed. Br. 6 (emphasis added).
As set forth supra, claim 57 recites “[a] method for visually assisting
a catheter application on a heart of a patient” (emphasis added), and
Appellants’ Specification discloses that Figure 1 shows a device “used for
visually assisting a catheter application ... for example, a catheter ablation
on the heart H of the patient P.” Spec. ^ 40. The Specification distinguishes
between a catheter application that uses a catheter for ablation (i.e., an
ablation catheter) and the use of a catheter for imaging or mapping (i.e., a
mapping catheter). Although the Specification recognizes that “the mapping
function and the ablation function are frequently combined in one catheter”
4 The Examiner determines, and Appellants do not dispute, that Boese’s 2D
fluoroscopy image corresponds to the claimed acquired image, and that
Boese’s 3D mapping data corresponds to the claimed acquired
electroanatomical mapping data. See Ans. 18.
5 Cf Final Act. 3^1 (wherein the Examiner finds that Boese “fails to teach'1'’
(emphasis added) determining the claimed coordinate transformation before
the catheter application, as claimed, and relies on Verard for teaching this
claim limitation. Final Act. 3^1 (citing Verard 69, 73-75, 78, 146).
6 Cf Ans. 18 (wherein the Examiner finds that because Boese discloses that
“coordinate transformation is done in real-time through the real-time
registering [of] both data, ” it would have been obvious “that such
transformation is done before catheter ablation” (emphasis added), because
“an operator would require to identify the location/position of the tip of the
catheter within the body of the patient before the ablation application.”).
5
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
(see, e.g., id. at 4), this distinction is clear in the Specification, such that
the claim term “catheter application” refers to a procedure performed with a
catheter (i.e., catheter ablation), but does not include using a catheter for
imaging or mapping.
Boese discloses that “[i]n landmark-based 2D-3D registration, at least
4 landmarks are started, with the catheter, in the immediate vicinity of the
ventricle to be treated . . . , and are thus identified in both the 2D
fluoroscopy image and the 3D mapping data.” Boese ^ 31. Boese also
discloses that “[b]y recording the 3D position of a landmark using the EP
mapping system, the 2D position is stored simultaneously in the 2D
fluoroscopy image, [such that] a projection matrix is automatically defined
which can be used to allocate each pixel of the 2D fluoroscopy image
precisely to a 3D point in the 3D mapping data.” Id. Thus, a preponderance
of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Boese’s landmark-
based 2D-3D registration (or coordinate transformation) is determined by a
catheter performing a mapping function before the same catheter performs
an ablation function (i.e., a catheter application).7
The Examiner also finds that Boese discloses determining a position
of a patient during the acquisition of the image and data, as claimed, because
Boese teaches that “easily identifiable anatomical points are preferably used
7 Appellants do not argue that Boese’s landmark-based 2D-3D registration
fails to disclose the claimed coordinate transformation, or that Boese fails to
disclose the claimed step of calibrating, as determined by the Examiner
supra. See Br. 8-14; Final Act. 3.
6
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
as landmarks for registration, such as—for example—the superior vena cava,
the inferior vena cava, fossa, coronary sinus, the tricuspid valve in the right
atrium or the 4 pulmonal veins and the mitral valve in the left atrium.” Ans.
16 (quoting Boese ^ 32). The Examiner determines that because “these
landmarks [represent] the position of the patient,. . . Boese teaches
determining a position of the patient during the acquisition of the image and
the acquisition of the electroanatomical mapping data,” as claimed. Id. The
Examiner further finds that because Boese discloses that “[i]n landmark
based 2D-3D registration, at least 4 landmarks are started, with the catheter,
in the immediate vicinity of the ventricle to be treated or directly in the
ventricle, and are thus identified in both the 2D fluoroscopy image and the
3D mapping data,” Boese “teaches assigning the determined positions of the
patient to the image and the data,” as claimed.8’9 Id. at 16-17 (emphasis
added).
Appellants argue that Boese does not “teach or suggest” the claimed
steps of determining a position of the patient during the acquisition of the
8 Cf. Ans. 15 (wherein the Examiner finds that Boese inherently determines
a position of the patient during the acquisition of the image and data, and
assigns the position to the image and data, as claimed).
9 Cf. Ans. 24 (wherein the Examiner determines that Boese discloses
determining a position of the patient during the acquisition of the image and
data, and assigning the position to the image and data, as claimed, because,
in Boese, “when [a] patient moves, re-calculation of the projection] matrix
is performed,” which “is a change[] to the coordinate transformation based
on the changes in the patient position,” such that “the coordinate
transformation is adapted to incorporate any changes in the position of the
7
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
image and during the acquisition of the electroanatomical mapping data; and
assigning the determined positions to the image and electroanatomical
mapping data, as claimed. Br. 6. In support, Appellants submit that, in
Boese, the patient’s position is not determined during imaging or mapping,
but rather, “during the procedure,” wherein “any movement of the patient
leads to a recalculation of the projection matrix, which is done either by
repeating the landmark/surface based registration or with the help of an
orientation or position sensor on the patient.” Id. at 6-7 (citing Boese 29,
30).
However, Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s
determination that because Boese establishes the patient’s position, by
establishing the position of anatomical points within the patient, during the
use of the catheter for mapping, Boese’s method meets the claim limitation
of determining a position of the patient during acquisition of the image and
data, as disclosed in paragraph 32 of Boese. For example, Appellants do not
dispute that identifying the position of anatomical points within the patient
fails to meet the claim limitation of determining a position of a patient. To
the extent the Examiner may have presented this finding for the first time in
the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants declined to have the Examiner’s finding
designated as a new ground by filing a petition, and instead proceeded with
an appeal to this Board. See C.F.R. § 41.40(a). Thus, Appellants’ argument
patient determined during the acquisition of the image and acquisition of the
electroanatomical mapping data.”).
8
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Further, Appellants’
argument also does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination
that because Boese identifies the anatomical points within the patient in the
2D image and EP mapping data, Boese assigns the patient position, as
claimed.
Regarding Verard, Appellants argue that “Verard does not teach or
suggest a transformation between a coordinate system of the C-arm x-ray
device and a coordinate system of the electromagnetic position-detection and
mapping system” (Br. 7) or that such transformation is determined before
the catheter application, as claimed {id. at 8). Appellants also argue that
“Verard’s registration technique does not calibrate the C-arm x-ray device
and the electromagnetic position-detection and mapping system, as claimed,
since no transformation has been established between the coordinate systems
of the two devices.” Id. Appellants further argue that Verard does not teach
or suggest determining the patient’s position, or assigning the determined
positions to the image and data, as claimed. Id.
However, the Examiner relies on Boese for all of these disclosures (or
teachings), as set forth supra, and in view of findings presented in the
Examiner’s Answer. Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to Verard do
not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to Boese.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 57. Appellants rely on the same arguments for the patentability of
independent claim 76, and therefore, for the same reasons stated supra, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 76. Br. 6-8.
9
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability of
dependent claims 68-71, 73, and 74, and therefore, for the same reasons
stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 68-71, 73,
and 74. Br. 8.
Rejections II V
Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the
patentability of claim 58-67 and 72, which depend from independent claim
57. Br. 9-12, and thus, for the same reasons stated supra, we also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 58-67 and 72.
Rejection VI
Claim 75, which depends from independent claim 57, recites, in
relevant part, “wherein the position of the patient. . . [is] taken into account
in merging image data . . . with the electroanatomical mapping data.” Br.
17-18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Boese “fails to
teach” this limitation, and relies on Fuimaono, Final Act. 12 (citing
Fuimaono, Abstract, 23)). Appellants argue that Fuimaono “does not
make any reference to the position of the patient,” and therefore, cannot
disclose the limitations of claim 75.
As discussed supra, the Examiner also finds that Boese discloses
determining a coordinate transformation before catheter application (i.e.,
catheter ablation), and also determining a position of the patient (i.e., using
anatomical points) during acquisition of the image and data. Boese further
discloses that “[t]he result of each 2D-3D registration is a projection matrix,
which enables each pixel of the 2D fluoroscopy image to be precisely
10
Appeal 2015-000772
Application 12/518,172
allocated to a 3D point in the 3D mapping data,” such that “[t]his projection
matrix can therefore be used for displaying the 3D mapping data with the
same position and orientation as the 2D fluoroscopy image, and for
superimposing the two displays as required.” Boese ^ 25 (emphasis added).
Thus, according to the Examiner’s findings wherein the landmarks are a
determination of a patient’s position, Boese discloses taking into account the
patient’s position determined during data and image acquisition in merging
the data and image data, as claimed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 75.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 57-76 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11