Ex Parte Boese et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2012

11398883 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2012)

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.
11/398,883 04/06/2006 Jan Boese 2005P02334US 1227
22116 7590 11/20/2012
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
TUNG, KEE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2012 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 JAN BOESE and NORBERT RAHN
________________

Appeal 2010-004754
Application 11/398,883
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004754
Application 11/398,883

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 13, 17 – 19, and 22 – 24. Claims 1 – 12, 14 – 16, 20,
and 21 are canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to a method for representing preoperatively
recorded three-dimensional image data when recording two-dimensional X-
ray images. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claims (Emphases Added)
13. A method of displaying preoperatively recorded three-
dimensional image data of a patient while recording two-
dimensional X-ray images during an operation of the patient
subsequent to the pre-operative recording of the three-
dimensional data, the method comprising:
preoperatively recording the three-dimensional image
data of the patient with a first imaging device in a diagnostic
device while performing a pre-operative diagnosis;
subsequent to the pre-operative recording of the three-
dimensional data, recording a plurality of two-dimensional X-
ray images using an X-ray device having recording parameters,
wherein the X-ray device and the first imaging device comprise
different imaging devices and further wherein the three-
dimensional image data recorded with the first imaging device
and the two-dimensional X-ray images recorded with the X-ray
device are generated independently from one another;
determining two-dimensional representations of the three-
dimensional image data;
Appeal 2010-004754
Application 11/398,883

3
interrelating the recording parameters to the two-
dimensional representations of the three-dimensional image
data, said interrelating based on at least one rotation of the
three-dimensional image data recorded with the first imaging
device so that a resulting rotated three-dimensional image data
correspond to a recording position of a respective two-
dimensional X -ray image recorded under specific recording
parameters, wherein the interrelating of the recording
parameters to the two-dimensional representations further
comprises interrelating the specific recording parameters to the
two-dimensional representations determined from the rotated
three-dimensional image data, wherein the interrelating of the
recording parameters to the two-dimensional representations
includes a determination of a spatial orientation of the three-
dimensional image data relative to the X-ray image recorded
under the specific recording parameters, wherein said spatial
orientation is based on a measurement indicative of spatial
registration between the three-dimensional image data and the
X-ray image recorded under the specific recording parameters;
and
displaying the two-dimensional representations obtained
from the three-dimensional image data pre-operatively
recorded with the first imaging device while recording the two-
dimensional X-ray images during the subsequent operation of
the patient, wherein the two-dimensional representations are
adjusted and the adjusted two-dimensional representations
displayed if the recording parameters are adjusted while
recording the two-dimensional X-ray images, the adjusted two-
dimensional representations determined based on the
measurement indicative of spatial registration between the
rotated three-dimensional image data and the X-ray image
recorded under the specific recording parameters.
19. An X-ray imaging system, comprising:
a controller for adjusting a position of image-generating
device parts, the device parts provided for recording at least one
two-dimensional image at the position, said at least one two-
dimensional image generated with the X-ray imaging system;
Appeal 2010-004754
Application 11/398,883

4
an image processing system for processing three-
dimensional image data originating from a second imaging
device in a diagnostic device while performing a pre-operative
diagnosis, the three-dimensional image data from the second
imaging device generated independently from the two-
dimensional image generated by the X-ray system, wherein the
X-ray imaging device and the second imaging device comprise
different imaging devices, the three-dimensional image data fed
to the X-ray imaging system from the diagnostic device to
generate two-dimensional representations of the three-
dimensional image data originated from the second imaging
device, wherein the controller and the image processing system
are connected such that the two-dimensional representations
are displayed relative to the position of the image-generating
device parts; and
an input device configured to:
adjust the three-dimensional image data originated
from the second imaging device by rotating the three-
dimensional image data such that the adjusted three-
dimensional image data correspond to an X-ray image
recorded at a specific position; and
interrelate the adjusted three-dimensional image
data to the X-ray image recorded at the specific position;
wherein, as the three-dimensional image originated from
the second imaging device is rotated, the image processing
system is configured to determine a spatial orientation of the
three-dimensional image data originated from the second
imaging device relative to the X-ray image recorded at the
specific position, said spatial orientation based on a
measurement indicative of spatial registration between the
three-dimensional image data originated from the second
imaging device and the X-ray image recorded at the specific
position.
Appeal 2010-004754
Application 11/398,883

5
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 13, 17 – 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ichihashi (US 2002/0045817 A1; Apr.
18, 2002) and Hastings (US 2005/0256398 A1; Nov. 17, 2005; filed May 12,
2004). Ans. 3 – 14.
The Examiner rejects claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ichihashi, Hastings, and Gotoh (US 2004/0081285;
Apr. 29, 2004). Ans. 14.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Ichihashi teaches or suggests
“displaying the two-dimensional representations obtained from the three-
dimensional image data pre-operatively recorded with the first imaging
device while recording the two-dimensional X-ray images during the
subsequent operation of the patient . . . ,” as recited in claim 13?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Ichihashi teaches or suggests
“wherein the controller and the image processing system are connected such
that the two-dimensional representations are displayed relative to the
position of the image-generating device parts . . . ,” as recited in claim 19?
ANALYSIS
We only consider those arguments that Appellant actually raise in the
Briefs. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008). Arguments in the Reply
Brief that could have been presented in the Appeal Brief to rebut rejections
made in the Final Office Action are waived and are not considered. See Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative decision)
(“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could
Appeal 2010-004754
Application 11/398,883

6
have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s
rejections, but were not.”).
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites “displaying the two-dimensional representations
obtained from the three-dimensional image data pre-operatively recorded
with the first imaging device while recording the two-dimensional X-ray
images during the subsequent operation of the patient.” The Examiner finds
that Ichihashi, which is directed to a radiographic image diagnosis device,
teaches or suggests this display of two-dimensional representations obtained
from three-dimensional data. See Ans. 7 – 8 (citing Ichihashi ¶ [0050]).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that “Ichihashi
merely describes displaying a 3D image,” App. Br. 6, but that an artisan of
ordinary skill would “appreciate that although the 3D image of Ichihashi
may be based on 2D projections (as any 3D image is), the basic point
remains that image 62 is a 3D image (volume data),” App. Br. 7. Appellants
do not provide arguments or evidence persuasively distinguishing between a
two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional volume data and “two-
dimensional representations obtained from . . . three-dimensional image
data.” Even when the underlying image has a three-dimensional appearance,
a two-dimensional projection of the three-dimensional image is still a two-
dimensional representation. See, e.g., Ichihashi fig. 3 (illustrating a two-
dimensional representation of a cube). Moreover, Ichihashi teaches that the
image at issue “may be displayed as a surface display image projected by a
maximum intensity projection (MIP) technique [or] minimum intensity
projection (MinIP) technique.” Ichihashi ¶ [0045]. A surface display image
Appeal 2010-004754
Application 11/398,883

7
obtained from three-dimensional data is also a two-dimensional
representation of three-dimensional data. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Ichihashi teaches or suggests “displaying the two-dimensional
representations obtained from the three-dimensional image data pre-
operatively recorded with the first imaging device while recording the two-
dimensional X-ray images during the subsequent operation of the patient,”
as recited in claim 13.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 13, and of claims 17 and 18, which depend thereon and which are
not argued separately.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites “wherein the controller and the image processing
system are connected such that the two-dimensional representations are
displayed relative to the position of the image-generating device parts.” The
Examiner finds that Ichihashi’s generation of projection image data on the
basis of the position and angle of a controller teaches or suggests the claimed
controller and image processing system connection. See Ans. 11 (citing
Ichihashi fig. 2 and ¶¶ [0050] – [0051]).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that Ichihashi
depicts a window on a display unit “displaying operation buttons for the
rotation (e.g., icon 65a), movement, enlargement/reduction, and the like of
the 3D image 62.” App. Br. 9 (citing, e.g., Ichihashi fig. 6). Appellants
argue that this illustrates that “the rotation of image 62 occurs in response to
an input from the operator,” as opposed to displaying two-dimensional
representations “based on the position of the image-generating parts (e.g.,
Appeal 2010-004754
Application 11/398,883

8
the position of X-ray C-arm).” See App. Br. 10. However, the Examiner
correctly finds that Ichihashi teaches:
angle/position information and distance information are
supplied from the C-arm position/angle detecting mechanism
17, X-ray detector position measuring mechanism 18, and bed
top position measuring mechanism 19 to the image acquisition
unit 20 . . . [and] the display direction and position of the 3D
image (2D projected image) 62 displayed on the display unit 40
are updated on the basis of these pieces of information. That is,
the position of the 3D image (20 projection image) 62 displayed
on the display unit relatively coincides with that of the
photographed real-time fluoroscopic image 61.
Ans. 21 (citing Ichihashi ¶ [0050]).
In other words, when the image-generating device parts (C-arm, X-ray
detector, and bed top) are moved in Ichihashi, the two-dimensional
representation (2D projected image) is displayed relative to the position of
the image-generating device parts (i.e., is adjusted to relatively coincide with
that of the photographed real-time fluoroscopic image). We agree with the
Examiner that this teaches or suggests “wherein the controller and the image
processing system are connected such that the two-dimensional
representations are displayed relative to the position of the image-generating
device parts,” as recited in claim 19.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 19, and of claims 22 – 24, which are not argued separately with
sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13, 17 – 19, and 22 – 24 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2010-004754
Application 11/398,883

9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke