Ex Parte Hsieh et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 28, 201210243057 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2012) Copy Citation MOD PTOL-90A (Rev.06/08) APPLICATION NO./ CONTROL NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR / PATENT IN REEXAMINATION ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 10/243,057 09/13/2002 Hsieh, Jiang EXAMINER GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON TX 77269-2289 Lauritzen, Amanda ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3737 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2012 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. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Address : COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte JIANG HSIEH, GOPAL B. AVINASH, CHERIK BULKES, and JOHN M. SABOL __________ Appeal 2010-009224 Application 10/243,057 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges. MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected the claims for anticipation/obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2010-009224 Application 10/243,057 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The following claims are representative and read as follows: 1. A method for processing a first image generated by an imaging system comprising: accessing a first set of image data acquired using a first imaging modality; processing the first set of image data via a computer aided diagnosis algorithm to identify a feature of interest in the first set of image data; and automatically generating a second image based upon the identification of the feature of interest, wherein the second image is generated by reprocessing the first set of image data. 3. The method as in claim 1, wherein the second image is generated by reconstructing at least a portion of the first set of the image data. 6. The method as in claim 1, wherein the first set of image data is accessed by reading out an array of pixels. 40. A method for processing a first image generated by an imaging system comprising: accessing a first set of image data acquired using a first imaging modality; processing the first set of image data via a computer aided diagnosis algorithm to identify a feature of interest in the first set of image data; and automatically generating a second image based upon the identification of the feature of interest, wherein the second image is generated by acquiring and processing a second set of image data. 41. The method as in claim 40, wherein acquiring the second set of image data comprises acquiring image data by at least one alternative imaging system. 43. The method as in claim 3, wherein reconstructing at least a portion of the first set of image data comprises modifying one or more reconstruction parameters. Appeal 2010-009224 Application 10/243,057 3 Cited Reference The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference: Roehrig et al. US 7,054,473 B1 May 30, 2006 Grounds of Rejection Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23-25, 26-30 and 40-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Roehrig. FINDINGS OF FACT The Examiner’s findings of fact are set forth in the Answer at pages 3- 11. Discussion ISSUE The Examiner concludes that Roehrig teaches each element claimed. Appellants argue Roehrig does not teach generating a second image, as claimed. Appellants argue that Roehrig teaches post-processing of an image and not reprocessing of an image, as claimed. (See App. Br. 22, Reply Br. 2.) The issue is: Does the cited prior art teach reprocessing of an image, as claimed? Appeal 2010-009224 Application 10/243,057 4 PRINCIPLES OF LAW In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference, it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. See Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, we consider the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966): (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). ANALYSIS We agree with the Examiner’s fact finding, statement of the rejection and responses to Appellants’ arguments as set forth in the Answer and adopt them as our own. We find that the evidence before us supports a prima facie Appeal 2010-009224 Application 10/243,057 5 case of anticipation and obviousness. We provide the following additional comment. Appellants argue that the Examiner has misinterpreted the Roehrig reference and the pending claims. (Reply Br. 2.) Particularly, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s finding that the terms “reprocessing” and “post- processing” are synonymous is incorrect. (Id.) Appellants argue that “the step of post-processing a reconstructed image is different from the step of “reprocessing” image data originally used to reconstruct an initial image (e.g., “first image”) to reconstruct a subsequent image” (App. Br. 22.) For example, Appellants argue that, “[i]n the context of the present claims, based on the regions of interest identified by the CAD analysis of the first image, it may be desirable to optimize or increase visibility of these regions of interest by reprocessing the original set of raw image data (e.g., the data used in reconstructing the first image) to generate a second image which may focus on a particular segment or portion of the raw image data corresponding to one or more of the identified regions of interest in the first image.” (Id.) We are not persuaded. Roehrig discloses that its system “exploits the information provided by the computer aided diagnosis (CAD) system to display an improved visualization of the image, showing suspicious regions where they might otherwise be hard to visualize.” (Roehrig, col. 2, ll. 42- 46.) Roehrig further discloses that the “system… accepts images from different acquisition devices.” (Id. at col. 6, ll. 40-42.) Roehrig indicates that the “system may further include image comparison logic… which may compare the historical image/different device image with the current main image.” (Id. at col. 9, ll. 44-47.) These images may be displayed side by side or as a comparison, highlighting the various aspects. (See id. at col. 9, ll. Appeal 2010-009224 Application 10/243,057 6 47-48.) We find that an improved visualization of the original image as in Roehrig is the same as “reprocessing image data originally used to reconstruct an initial image (e.g., “first image”) to reconstruct a subsequent image.” (App. Br. 22.) For the reasons of record, the anticipation and obviousness rejections are affirmed, as well as those presented for separately argued claims. CONCLUSION OF LAW The cited reference supports the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED alw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation