KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2021

2020006548 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2021)

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.
15/503,115 02/10/2017 LUWEI HUANG 2013P01704WOUS01 8865
24737 7590 08/30/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
PATEL, RISHI R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2896
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LUWEI HUANG

Appeal 2020-006548
Application 15/503,115
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14–26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Feb. 10, 2017 (“Spec.”),
the Final Office Action dated Aug. 30, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Apr. 10, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated July 21,
2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 21, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-006548
Application 15/503,115

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to coil compression for Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (MRI) and, specifically, a method and apparatus for coil
compression using a hardware coil compressor. Spec. 1:5–7.
Claim 14 is illustrative and reproduced from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief (disputed limitation italicized).
14. A method of channel compression for magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), the method comprising:
pre-combining, using n' pre-combiners, n outputs (Cl,
C2, ... Cn) from n coils of an n coil array configured for
imaging the same region of interest (ROI) to obtain fewer n'
pre-combination outputs, where n' is an integer greater than 1,
wherein the n coils are grouped into n' sub-arrays based on an
order of importance of each of the n coils represented by a
contribution of the output of each of the respective n-coils to a
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a signal obtained by combining
the outputs of the n coils and each pre-combiner is configured
to pre-combine outputs from a respective one of the n'
subarrays to obtain one of the n' pre-combination outputs; and
compressing the n' pre-combination outputs of the n' pre-
combiners into fewer virtual outputs with highest signal-to-
noise ratios (SNRs) for image reconstruction.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix). Independent claims 18 and 23,
directed to an apparatus and a controller, respectively, include the
same disputed claim language contained in claim 14.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Appeal 2020-006548
Application 15/503,115

3
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
argued claims and Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded of reversible
error in the appealed rejections.
The Examiner rejects claims 14–26 as follows for the reasons
provided in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 4–12.
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24 102(a)(1) Akao3
16, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26 103 Akao, Buehrer4
22 103 Akao, Wald5
Anticipation of Independent Claims 14, 18, and 23
The Examiner finds Akao discloses channel compression for MRI
using multiple pre-combiners and multiple combiner circuits where the coils
are sorted based on prior information about the outputs of the radio
frequency (RF) element layout. Final Act. 5, 7. The Examiner finds Akao
teaches signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) strongly depends on the image
placement relative to the RF elements. Id. at 5; Ans. 4. The Examiner finds it
was known in the art that the closer a coil is to a region of interest (ROI), the
higher the coil sensitivity to the ROI and also the higher the SNR because
“sensitivity directly correlates to SNR.” Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted); see
Ans. 4 (“the closer the coil is to the region of interest equates to higher coil
sensitivity to the region of interest and also higher SNR.”). Based on this

3 US 2007/0013375 A1, pub. Jan. 18, 2007.
4 US 2010/0013472 A1, pub. Jan. 21, 2010.
5 US 2010/0289494 A1, pub. Nov. 18, 2010.
Appeal 2020-006548
Application 15/503,115

4
relationship, the Examiner concludes because Akao groups coils based on
sensitivity, Akao’s coils are grouped according to the importance of each of
the n coil’s contribution to the SNR. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4–5 (citing Akao
¶¶ 18, 22). The Examiner also relies on Akao’s Table 1 and Figure 3B to
support Akao’s grouping of coils. Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 6.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
independent claims over Akao because Akao does not teach grouping coils
into sub-arrays based on an order of importance of each of the n coils
represented by the contribution of the coil output to the SNR. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant contends Akao’s paragraph 22 identifies various factors that can
impact SNR, including variance of mode direction and mode subsets,
however, these modes are not coils and subsets of coils. Id. at 7. Appellant
also challenges the Examiner’s position that Akao’s Table 1 supports the
grouping of coils into a sub-array of coils based on the importance of each of
the coils and the contribution of the n-coils to the SNR by noting that Akao’s
paragraph 33, which describes Table 1, states that SNR loss is due to
channel compression. Id. at 8–9.
Appellant’s arguments persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred
in rejecting independent claims 14, 18, and 23 as anticipated by Akao.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[A]nticipation of a claim
under § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim.” In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “[A]bsence from the reference of any
Appeal 2020-006548
Application 15/503,115

5
claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible
Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir 1986). Anticipation, therefore, is not a
determination of whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have grouped coils based on Akao’s general disclosure of factors having an
impact on SNR as the Examiner applies here to overcome the missing
element of n coils grouped into n’ sub-arrays based on each of the n coils’
contribution to a SNR.
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that the anticipation analysis
relies on a relationship between higher coil sensitivity and higher SNR
disclosed in secondary reference Ladebeck (US 2011/0074420 A1,
published Mar. 31, 2011). Ans. 4. Ladebeck’s paragraph 3 states “[l]ocal
coil arrays offer the advantage of greater sensitivity, i.e. their use permits a
higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to be achieved.” The fact that such a
relationship exists together with Akao’s Figure 3B showing grouped coils
does not anticipate the independent claims’ requirement that n coils are
grouped into n’ sub-arrays based on each of the n coils’ contribution to a
SNR. The Examiner states that the argued claim limitation “does not
disclose a specific grouping or that the SNR is directly calculated for each
coil and then grouping is determined” and finds that Akao’s grouping coils
using coil sensitivity anticipates the limitation. Ans. 5. The Examiner’s
finding is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence cited in this
Appeal record for the reasons stated by Appellant in the Appeal Brief and
the Reply Brief. As Appellant points out (Reply Br. 5–6), Akao’s paragraph
33 discloses a view with a primarily SI phase encoding direction can use the
configuration shown in Akao’s Fig. 3B (and LR phase encoding in Fig. 3C).
Akao ¶ 33. Akao’s disclosure of imaging with SI phase encoding and LR
Appeal 2020-006548
Application 15/503,115

6
phase encoding has not been shown in this Appeal record to teach grouping
coils in a sub-array based on an order of importance of each of the coils
based on contribution of the coils to the SNR as required by claims 14, 18,
and 23.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 18,
and 23 for the reasons given above. We also reverse the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 15, 19, and 24 based on their dependency
from claims 14, 18, and 23.
Obviousness of Claims 16, 17, 20–22, 25, and 26
Appellant contends the Examiner’s obviousness rejections based on
Akao in combination with secondary references are in error because Akao
fails to disclose the n coils grouped into n’ sub-arrays identified above in
connection with the anticipation rejection of independent claims 14, 18, and
23.6 Appeal Br. 9.
We find Appellant’s argument persuasive of error because the
Examiner does not rely upon the secondary references to cure the
deficiencies of Akao discussed above in connection with the anticipation
rejection of independent claims 14, 18, and 23. To establish prima facie
obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught
or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA
1974). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning

6 We understand Appellant’s inclusion of dependent claim 22 in the listing
of claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 rather than in the listing of claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as a typographical error. Compare Appeal
Br. 5, with Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2020-006548
Application 15/503,115

7
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In the absence of
such a showing, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16,
17, 20–22, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14, 15, 18,
19, 23, 24 102(a)(1)
Akao 14, 15, 18,
19, 23, 24
16, 17, 20,
21, 25, 26 103
Akao, Buehrer 16, 17, 20,
21, 25, 26
22 103 Akao, Wald 22
Overall
Outcome
14–26

REVERSED