Yohei Matsuzawa

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

14730713 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

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.
14/730,713 06/04/2015 Yohei MATSUZAWA 454944US20X CONT 7472
22850 7590 09/30/2019
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
SONG, HOON K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
______________
Ex parte YOHEI MATSUZAWA
______________
Appeal 2019-001507
Application 14/730,713
Technology Center 2800
______________
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5 and 9–11 of Application
14/730,713.2 Final Act. (September 5, 2017). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appellant has elected not to appeal the rejection of claim 4. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-001507
Application 14/730,713
2
BACKGROUND
The ’713 Application describes an x-ray computed tomography
apparatus. Spec. 1. To improve image quality, an x-ray computed
tomography apparatus is designed to reduce gantry vibration when the
gantry rotates. Id. The need to reduce gantry vibration is especially acute
when a moving organ such as the human heart must be scanned with good
image quality because such scans require high-speed rotation of the gantry.
Id. The Specification describes x-ray computed tomography apparatuses that
have reduced outer shape size and weight and can still rotate at high speed.
Id. at 2.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’713 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. An X-ray computed tomography apparatus, comprising:
an annular rotating unit on which an X-ray tube and an X-ray
detector are configured to be mounted;
a first frame configured to support the rotating unit so as to
allow the rotating unit to rotate about a rotation axis;
a base stand configured to support the first frame from a floor
surface;
a gantry arm coupled to the base stand and one of half portions
of the first frame divided by a horizontal axis perpendicular to
the rotation axis; and
a second frame coupled to the gantry arm and the other of the
half portions of the first frame.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-001507
Application 14/730,713
3
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
Claims 1–3, 5, and 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Theiss.3 Final Act. 3–6.
DISCUSSION
Appellant presents separate arguments for the patentability of
independent claims 1, 10, and 11. We address each of these claims below.
Claim 1. Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated
by Theiss should be reversed because Theiss does not disclose the claimed
“second frame coupled to the gantry arm and the other of the half portions of
the first frame (in addition to having a gantry arm coupled to the base stand
in one of [the] half portions of the first frame).” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis
omitted).

3 US 2014/0016758 A1, published January 16, 2014.
Appeal 2019-001507
Application 14/730,713
4
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner provided an annotated version of
Theiss’s Figure 1, which we reproduce below.

Theiss’s Figure 1 depicts a tiltable gantry
of a CT scanner. Theiss ¶ 16. The Examiner has
annotated Figure 1 to explain the basis for the
rejection. Final Act. 3–4.
According to the Examiner, Theiss describes an x-ray computed
tomography apparatus comprising an annular rotating unit 300 on which an
x-ray tube and an x-ray detector are configured to be mounted. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-001507
Application 14/730,713
5
The Examiner found that Theiss’s Figure 1 includes a portion labeled by the
Examiner as (D) that corresponds to the claimed first frame. Id. at 3. The
Examiner further found that Figure 1 depicts “base stand 100, 104
configured to support the first frame from a floor surface.” Id. The Examiner
also found that Figure 1 depicts “a gantry arm (A) coupled to base stand
104” and the upper half portion of first frame (D), which is divided by a
horizontal axis (B) perpendicular to the rotation axis. Id. The Examiner
additionally found that Theiss’s Figure 1 depicts a second frame (C) coupled
to the gantry arm (A) and the bottom half portion of first frame (D). Id.
We begin by considering the meaning of the claim language “coupled
to.” During prosecution, the PTO gives the language of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
any definitions or other enlightenment provided by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054–55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the context in which it is used in the ’713 Application’s
Specification, the verb “couple” means “to fasten together.” See, e.g.,
Couple | Definition of Couple by Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster.com
(September 23, 2019) https://www.Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/couple.
The Specification states that in the claimed apparatus the gantry arms and
reinforcing frames “are coupled to each other with, for example, fastening
tools such as screws.” Spec. 11. The Specification also states that, as an
alternative to being coupled to the gantry arm and the first frame, the second
frame can be integrally formed with one or both of those parts. See, e.g., id.
at 9–11. The Specification, therefore, distinguishes between integral
formation and individual parts that are coupled together. In view of the
Appeal 2019-001507
Application 14/730,713
6
foregoing, we conclude that the claim term “coupled to” refers to individual
pieces that are mechanically connected in some manner, e.g., pieces that are
screwed or bolted together. Thus, we conclude that claim 1 requires that the
gantry arm be fastened to the base stand, one of the half portions of the first
frame, and the second frame. Claim 1 also requires that the second frame be
fastened to the other half portion of the first frame.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s explanation of the basis for the
rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not explain the basis for the finding
that Theiss describes the gantry arm as coupled to the base stand, one of the
half portions of the first frame and the second frame or the second frame
being coupled to the other half portion of the first frame. We have also
examined Theiss’s Figure 1 and Specification. We agree with the
Examiner’s inherent finding that Figure 1 shows the gantry arm (identified
as portion C in the annotated version of Figure 1 reproduced above)
rotatably connected to base stand 104. We, however, cannot find any support
for the finding that the gantry arm is coupled to one of the half portions of
the first frame as opposed to being integrally formed with the first frame.
Similarly, the portion of Theiss’s apparatus that the Examiner identifies as
corresponding to the second frame appears to be the integrally formed rim at
the edge of the plate that the Examiner identifies as corresponding to the first
frame. This rim also appears to be integrally formed with the gantry arm.
For the reasons set forth above, we determine that the Examiner erred
by finding that Theiss describes “a gantry arm coupled to . . . one of half
portions of the first frame” and “a second frame coupled to the gantry arm
and the other of the half portions of the first frame.”
We, therefore, reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 and of
dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 9, which depend from claim 1.
Appeal 2019-001507
Application 14/730,713
7
Claim 10. For reasons set forth above, we conclude that the Examiner
erred by finding that Theiss describes “a gantry arm coupled to . . . the first
frame and including a first portion . . . configured to be coupled to one of
half portions of the first frame . . . and a second portion . . . configured to be
coupled to the other of the half portions of the first frame.” We, therefore,
reverse the rejection of claim 10 as anticipated by Theiss.
Claim 11. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the
Examiner erred by finding that Theiss describes an x-ray computed
tomography apparatus having a first frame “wherein the one of the half
portions of the first frame has a bent structure configured to be coupled to
the gantry arm.” We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 11 as
anticipated by Theiss.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, and 9–11 § 102(a)(2) Theiss
1–3, 5, and 9–
11
REVERSED