Ex Parte Hsieh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2012

10243057 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2012)

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