Ex Parte Hendriks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

13320358 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/320,358 11/14/2011 Bernardus Hendrikus Wilhelmus Hendriks
24737 7590 04/29/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2009P00958WOUS 2276
EXAMINER
PATEL, NIRAV G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARDUS HENDRIKUS WILHELMUS HENDRIKS,
MICHAEL CORNELIS VAN BEEK, PETER-ANDRE REDERT,
FREDERIK JAN DE BRUIJN, DRAZENKO BABIC,
ROBERT JOHANNES FREDERIK HOMAN,
RALPH BRASPENNING, WEI PIEN LEE,
KARL CATHARINA VAN BREE,
and CAIFENG SHAN
Appeal2014-005590
Application 13/320,358 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005590
Application 13/320,358
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is generally directed to a system for detecting a
patient's movement during an imaging procedure. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below, with the disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A system for detecting a patient's global movement during
imaging procedures, the system comprising:
at least one camera configured to provide a stream of
images of a part of a patient's exterior and body contour;
at least one fiducial element mountable on said part of the
patient's exterior, wherein the fiducial element is detectable in
the stream of images, wherein the fiducial element has an in-
plane stiffness substantially larger than an in-plane stiffness of
said part of the patient's exterior, and wherein the fiducial
element and said part of the patient's exterior are provided with
substantially equal outer in-plane dimensions; and
an image processor configured to detect a displacement of
the fiducial element based on consecutive images comprised in
the stream of images, and configured to generate an output signal
indicative of said displacement.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Wiesner (Stefan Wiesner & Ziv Yaniv, Monitoring
Patient Respiration using a Single Optical Camera, PROCEEDINGS OF THE
29TH ANNUAL INT'L CONF. OF THE IEEE, 2740-43 (Aug. 2007)) and Jaffray
(US 2009/0116719 Al; published May 7, 2009). Final Act. 2--4.
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Wiesner, Jaffray, and Cosman (US
2002/0188194 Al; published Dec. 12, 2002). Final Act. 5-8.
2
Appeal2014-005590
Application 13/320,358
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Wiesner, Jaffray, and Bani-Hashemi (US
2002/0012420 Al; published Jan. 31, 2002). Final Act. 8-9.
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 10, and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable in view of Wiesner, Jaffray, and Kohler (US
6,435,717 Bl; Aug. 20, 2002). Final Act. 9-12.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Wiesner, Jaffray, and Graumann (US 2009/0141958
Al; published June 4, 2009). Final Act. 12-13.
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Wiesner, Jaffray, and Navab (US 2004/0247076 Al;
published Dec. 9, 2004). Final Act. 13-14.
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Wiesner, Jaffray, Kohler, and Gordon (WO
2007 /035907 A2; published March 29, 2007). Final Act. 14--15.
ISSUES
The issues are:
(i) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Wiesner and Jaffray teaches or suggests at least one camera configured to
"provide a stream of images of a part of a patient's exterior and body
contour," as recited in claim 1; and
(ii) whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Wiesner and Jaffray teaches or suggests "wherein the fiducial element has an
in-plane stiffness substantially larger than an in-plane stiffness of said part of
the patient's exterior," as recited in claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-005590
Application 13/320,358
ANALYSIS
Provide a stream of images of a part of patient's exterior and body
contour
Appellants argue that Wiesner fails to disclose providing a stream of
images of a patient's body contour. App. Br. 7-8, 9-10. Appellants argue
that the claim limitation of providing images of a patient's body contour is
illustrated in Figures 2 and 5 of Appellants' Specification and that the
Specification explains that, "[f]or the purposes of displaying the contour
514," the amount of X ray radiation provided by the X ray source "must be
sufficiently large, i.e. the amount of X ray radiation is to enable a
detectability of a patient's soft tissue in the X ray image 502." App. Br. 10
(quoting Spec. 12:15-18). Appellants also argue that "body contour" refers
"only to the part of a patient's exterior," and that an image that is "only of
the part of a patient's exterior" is an image that includes "only the contour of
that part." Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner responds that Wiesner discloses providing a stream of
images, and that Wiesner's Figure 4 shows images having both the exterior
and the body contour of a patient. Ans. 3--4. The Examiner also notes that
claim 1 does not recite an X ray radiation source or acquiring X ray images
to display a body contour; rather, the claim requires that camera images
show the patient's body contour. Id. at 3.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. First, Appellants'
reliance on an excerpt from the Specification lacks merit. See App. Br. 10.
Appellants' Specification describes one embodiment (illustrated in Fig. 2) in
which the patient's body contour (214) is shown in the stream of camera
images (208) but not the X ray image (202), and another embodiment
(illustrated in Fig. 5) in which the patient's body contour ( 514) is shown in
4
Appeal2014-005590
Application 13/320,358
both the stream of camera images (508) and the X ray image (502). See
Spec. 9: 12-10:29, 11:9-12:21. Appellants rely on a description in the
Specification of the radiation required to show the body contour in an X ray
image. See App. Br. 10. Claim 1, however, does not recite an X ray
radiation source or displaying X ray images. The limitation directed to
displaying the patient's body contour is directed to images from a camera:
"at least one camera configured to provide a stream of images of a part of a
patient's exterior and body contour." Therefore, the cited passage from the
Specification does not describe, let alone limit, the purported invention
recited in claim 1.
Second, we agree with the Examiner that Wiesner discloses a camera
configured to provide a stream of images of a part of a patient's exterior and
body contour. Wiesner discloses that video images are acquired at a rate of
30 images per second and Figure 4 of Wiesner shows a "sample image from
[the] video stream." Wiesner 2740, 2742. The sample image shows a part
of the patient's exterior and body contour. Id. at 2742 (Fig. 4). Appellants'
Specification does not provide any special meaning of contour or any
disavowal of the term's ordinary meaning, which the Examiner found to be
an edge that defines or bounds an object. See Ans. 4; Spec. 9:30-10: 13,
12:3-13:3. The claim is also broadly worded in that it does not specify that
the image is "only" of a part of the patient's exterior, or that the body
contour is "only" of a particular part of the patient's exterior, as Appellants
argue. See Reply Br. 4. Wiesner's sample image does not show the entirety
of the patient's exterior or the entirety of the patient's body contour; it shows
a part of the patient's exterior, as well as a part of the patient's body contour.
5
Appeal2014-005590
Application 13/320,358
We therefore agree with the Examiner that Wiesner discloses the disputed
claim limitation.
Wherein the fiducial element has an in-plane stiffness substantially
larger than an in-plane stiffness of said part of the patient's exterior
Appellants also argue that Jaffray does not disclose a fiducial element
with an in-plane stiffness substantially larger that an in-plane stiffness of the
part of the patient's exterior. App. Br. 8-9, 10. Specifically, Appellants
argue that Jaffray is silent both about "in-plane" stiffness and any
comparison between stiffness of the fiducial element and parts of the
patient's exterior. Id. at 8.
The Examiner responds that Jaffray discloses that the respiratory
marker is "substantially rigid respective to the forces applied to the marker
by the respiring patient, so that at least the elongated detectable portion 42
remains substantially stiff as it moves in correlation with respiration of the
patient." Ans. 5 (quoting Jaffray i-f 34). The Examiner also explains
Wiesner teaches placing the markers on the epigastric region, and that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the epigastric region
cannot generate enough force to deform the Jaffray marker. Ans. 5. The
Examiner also finds that by staying substantially rigid during respiration-as
disclosed by Jaffray-the marker has stiffness in any plane of the epigastric
region as the region moves and compresses. Id. at 6-7.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Jaffray expressly
discloses a respiratory marker that is "substantially rigid respective to the
forces applied to the marker by the respiring patient." Jaffray i-f 34. We
agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Jaffray and Wiesner
that using a fiducial element in the epigastric region that is substantially
6
Appeal2014-005590
Application 13/320,358
rigid with respect to the forces applied by the respiring patient teaches a
fiducial element that has an in-plane stiffness substantially larger than an in-
plane stiffness of the part of the patient's exterior of the epigastric region.
See Ans. 5-7.
Other limitations of claim 1
Appellants also underline certain limitations of claim 1 and state
without explanation that Wiesner in view of Jaffray does not teach or
suggest the claimed system. App. Br. 10-11. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that the combination of Wiesner and Jaffray teaches the underlined
limitations, including that Jaffray teaches that the marker and the part of the
patient's exterior have substantially equal outer in-plane dimensions. See
Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-8. Appellants have not addressed the Examiner's
findings or explained why they are in error.
For this reason and the reasons explained above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12 which are not
separately argued (see App. Br. 6-7, 11).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12.
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
7