Lantos Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 1, 2021

2020002119 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 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. 14/214,396 03/14/2014 Alison M. Forsyth LANT-0101-U01 -N 9294 87084 7590 06/01/2021 GTC Law Group PC & Affiliates One University Ave., Ste. 302B Westwood, MA 02090 EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1782 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2021 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): uspatents@gtclawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALISON M. FORSYTH, MANAS MENON, STAN NAJMR, FEDERICO FRIGERIO, BEN FRANTZDALE, and MICHAEL RISHTON Appeal 2020-002119 Application 14/214,396 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9–13, 20, 21 and 23–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lantos Techs., Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-02119 Application 14/214,396 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. An inflatable membrane configured to inflate within an anatomical cavity for use with a scanning system, the inflatable membrane comprising: a matrix material, wherein the matrix material forms 95.9% to 98.8% by weight of the inflatable membrane; a pigment for opacity, wherein the pigment for opacity forms at least 0.12 % by weight of the inflatable membrane, and wherein the pigment for opacity is mixed into the matrix material; and a fluorescent material, wherein the fluorescent material fluoresces a first wavelength of light and a second wavelength of light, and wherein the fluorescent material forms 1.0% to 3. 8% by weight of the inflatable membrane. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Becker US 4,643,733 Feb. 17, 1987 Osika US 2005/0191451 A1 Sept. 1, 2005 Matyjaszewski US 2007/0106012 A1 May 10, 2007 Bergemann US 2011/0076608 A1 Mar. 31, 2011 Hart (“Hart ‘005”) US 2011/0290005 A1 Dec. 1, 2011 Hart (“Hart ‘426”) US 2012/0327426 A1 Dec. 27, 2012 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 9–13, 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hart ‘426 in view of Hart ‘005. 2. Claims 3–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hart ‘426 in view of Hart ‘005 and Bergemann. Appeal 2020-02119 Application 14/214,396 3 3. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as bieng unpatentable over Hart ‘426 in view of Hart ‘005 and Becker. 4. Claims 7 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hart ‘426 in view of Hart ‘005, Bergemann, and Matyjaszewski. 5. Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hart ‘426 in view of Hart ‘005 and Osika. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant 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) (“[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 evidence presented in this Appeal (including the Examiner’s Answer, the Appeal Brief, and the Reply Brief), we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections essentially for the reasons provided by Appellant in the record, with the following emphasis. Rejections 1–5 We refer to pages 3–6 of the Final Office Action regarding the Examiner’s position for Rejection 1. Therein, the Examiner relies upon Hart ‘426 in view of Hart ‘005 in making the rejection. On page 4 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner states that while modified Hart [‘426] does not specifically disclose the amount of pigment for opacity, given that the amount of pigment affects the amount of dark color finish that may absorb Appeal 2020-02119 Application 14/214,396 4 certain wavelengths of light that would otherwise interfere with sensor measurements (Hart ‘005 [0076]), it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to have adjusted the amount of pigment in the film of Hart [‘426] in order to provide the desired dark color finish, to arrive at the claimed amounts of at least 0.12% as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. However, the pigment for opacity in the modified Hart ‘426 is a coating and not part of the matrix material as required by claim 1. Appellant points this out on page 9 of the Appeal Brief by stating the passive layer 422 forms no part of any membrane. Likewise, paragraph [0011] of Hart ‘426 discloses an optical coating making it not mixed with any matrix. Hence, we agree with Appellant that the rejection is in error. We thus reverse Rejection 1. For the same reasons, we reverse Rejections 2–5. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 9–13, 21, 23 103 Hart ‘426, Hart ‘005 1, 9–13, 21, 23 3–6 103 Hart ‘426, Hart ‘005, Bergemann 3–6 2 103 Hart ‘426, Hart ‘005, Becker 2 7, 20 103 Hart ‘426, Hart ‘005, Bergemann, Matyjaszewski 7, 20 24, 25 103 Hart ‘426, Hart ‘005, Osika 24, 25 Appeal 2020-02119 Application 14/214,396 5 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9–13, 20, 21, 23– 25 REVERSED