Ex Parte Laskaris

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 2013

11229377 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/229,377 09/16/2005 Evangelos Trifon Laskaris 148301-1/YOD/RAR (GERD:04 9973 41838 7590 01/29/2013 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER P. O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER BARRERA, RAMON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2832 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/29/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte EVANGELOS TRIFON LASKARIS _____________ Appeal 2010-007587 Application 11/229,377 Technology Center 2800 ______________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and JOHN G. NEW Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007587 Application 11/229,377 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-18. App. Br. 2. Claims 19-20 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. INVENTION The invention is directed to the field of magnetic resonance imaging and more specifically to the field of magnetic resonance imaging of human extremities. See Spec. ¶ [0001]. Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system. comprising: a cylindrical magnet for generating a static magnetic field, the magnet comprising: a cryostat having concave end plates: and a first set of superconducting coils shielded with a second set of superconducting coils, wherein the first and the second set of superconducting coils are disposed in the cryostat. REFERENCES Lvovsky US 6,570,475 B1 May 27, 2003 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-4, 8, 10-12,14, 15, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lvovsky. Ans. 3. Claims 5-7, 9, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lvovsky. Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-007587 Application 11/229,377 3 ISSUE 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Lvovsky discloses “a cryostat having concave end plates” as recited in claim 1; 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of routine skill and/or design choice with Lvovsky teaches or suggests “static magnetic field is in the range of about 1.5 Tesla to about 7 Tesla.” as recited in claim 6? ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) - Lvovsky Claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 Appellants argue that Lvovsky does not teach “a cryostat having concave end plates,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants argue that the “the Lvovsky reference does not appear to contemplate the use of concave recesses or walls at all in the enclosure 12, 14 as such structures would be generally inconsistent with forming a dome-shaped or spheroidal (i.e., convex) structure.” Br. 7. This argument is persuasive. The Examiner points to recess 30 and pole surfaces 28 of Lvovsky as the concave end plates (Ans. 5), but those structures are planar. Lvovsky, Figure 4. However, Lvovsky discloses that although “recess 30 [is] depicted in section as [a] planar wall[ ], [it] may also be formed as curved or arcuate walls to form smooth curved shapes such as domes. That is, the enclosures 12, 14 may be designed as domes, half spheroids, or other smooth walled forms.” Lvovsky, 7:47-50; see also Ans. 5. Appellants argue that “[t]he term ‘concave’ as presently recited, is generally understood to mean ‘arched Appeal 2010-007587 Application 11/229,377 4 in: curving in.’” Br. 5 (citing Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, p. 237 (10th ed. 2002)). We agree with Appellants that the broadest reasonable definition of concave requires curving in, not just a curve. Given that definition of concave, we agree with that Lvovsky’s disclosure of an arcuate, half spheroid, or dome shape does not explicitly disclose a concave shape. “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Because Appellants have shown at least one error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, we need not reach Appellants’ other arguments. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and 11 as being anticipated by Lvovsky. Claims 2-4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 11 and thus stand with claims 1 and 11. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) – Lvovsky Claims 5-7, 9, 13, and 16 Claims 5-7, 9, 13, and 16 depend from claims 1 and 11 discussed above. Thus, cannot sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject those claims for the same reasons cited above. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-18 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2010-007587 Application 11/229,377 5 tj