Ex Parte YUIDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 17, 201712854426 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/854,426 08/11/2010 Masao YUI LSN-6542-5 7770 23117 7590 01/27/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER RAJ, RAJIV J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASAO YUI Appeal 2015-002532 Application 12/854,426 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1—11 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-002532 Application 12/854,426 THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and a method of controlling the apparatus. (Spec. 1:7). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus, comprising: a sequence execution control unit configured to repeatedly and alternately execute MRI data acquisition sequences for (a) a diagnostic image and (b) a navigator image from a subject being imaged, the navigator image being an image used for motion detection; a slice position detecting unit configured to analyze each subsequent navigator image and thereby detect a position of a mark that indicates a position of a slice excited by the prior execution of a diagnostic imaging sequence; a respiratory motion estimating unit configured to estimate motion of a portion of the subject due to respiration, based on the position of the mark; and a sequence correcting unit configured to correct a diagnostic imaging sequence to be subsequently executed, based on the estimated respiratory motion. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Soubelet et. al US 2008/0240536 A1 Oct. 2, 2008 Boeing et. al US 2008/0310698 Al Dec. 18, 2008 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. 2. Claims 1—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boeing and Soubelet. 2 Appeal 2015-002532 Application 12/854,426 FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1. ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 The Examiner determined that claims 1-11 are directed to “an abstract idea, being a basic concept of providing healthcare (Ans. 2). Furthermore, according to the Examiner, “i[t] appears that claims 1-11 are software on a processor coupled to a memory and the claim is describing the intent of the software” (Ans. 2). The Examiner further finds that there is no improvement, e.g., “to another technology or technical field” (Ans. 2). The Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 1—11 is improper because, inter alia, the invention provides an improved technical effect in MRI imaging technology (Reply Br. 4). According to the Appellant, the claims contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment {id. at 8). Consistent with DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Appellant explains how “the claims at issue are rooted in complex MRI technology- that happens to use, inter alia, program-configured computerized control systems - to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of MRI data signal acquisition technology” (Reply Br. 10) and 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal 2015-002532 Application 12/854,426 thereby rendered patent eligible. We agree with the Appellant. We have determined that the elements of the claim are rooted in technology as the Appellant has argued and the rejection is not sustained. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Appellant argues, inter alia, that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because in the rejection of record the cited prior art fails to disclose “a mark that indicates a position of a slice excited by the prior execution of a diagnostic imaging sequence” (App. Br. 16—19). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is shown at paragraphs 30, 44, 51, and claim 5 of Boeing (Final Act. 4—5). We agree with the Appellant. Boeing at paragraphs 30 and 44 discloses a position marker that establishes the patient’s position on the examination table. Boeing at paragraph 51 discloses a “virtual marker object Mv,” that is similarly used to establish the patient coordinate system. There is no disclosure at the cited portions that either the position marker or virtual marker object “indicates a position of a slice excited by the prior execution of a diagnostic imaging sequence” as specifically claimed. As the cited claim limitation is not shown, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained. The remaining claims contain a similar claim limitation and the rejection of these claims is not sustained as well. 4 Appeal 2015-002532 Application 12/854,426 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boeing and Soubelet. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation