Ex Parte LobregtDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 24, 201210509644 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte STEVEN LOBREGT ___________ Appeal 2009-014062 Application 10/509,644 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014062 Application 10/509,644 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20. Claim 7 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to a method of visualising an internal hollow organ of a subject based on a volumetric scan. A number of three- dimensional images of an internal surface of the hollow organ are reconstructed such that an image (Li) is calculated for a left eye from a first view point and an image (Ri) is calculated for a right eye from a second view point that differs from the first view point. The left eye image and the right eye image are combined into a pair (Li, Ri) to form a stereoscopic image that is shown using a stereoscopic imager means. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method of visualising an internal hollow organ of a subject based on a volumetric scan thereof, said method comprising the step of: a) Reconstructing a number of three-dimensional images of the internal surface of the hollow organ; wherein for each image the method comprises the steps of: b) Calculating an image for the left eye from a first view point; c) Calculating an image for the right eye from a second view point that differs from the first view point, wherein the first and the second view points each have view directions that are essentially parallel to each other; d) Combining the left eye image and the right eye image into a pair to form a stereoscopic image; and e) Showing the stereoscopic image using stereoscopic imager means. Appeal 2009-014062 Application 10/509,644 3 Claims 1-3, 5, 13, 14 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shimizu (U.S. Patent No. 5,953,013; Sep. 14, 1999) and Kaji (U.S. Patent No. 6,501,468 B1; Dec. 31, 2002).1 Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shimizu, Kaji and Lorensen (U.S. Patent No. 5,611,025; Mar. 11, 1997). Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shimizu, Kaji, and Ogino (U.S. Patent No. 6,762,794 B1; Jul. 13, 2004). Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shimizu, Kaji and Palm (U.S. Patent No. 5,748,199; May 5, 1998). Claims 10, 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shimizu, Kaji, Palm and Chiu (U.S. Patent No. 5,606,348; Feb. 25, 1997). Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shimizu, Kaji and Chiu. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shimizu, Kaji and Holbrook (Morris B. Holbrook, Three-Dimensional Stereographic Visual Displays in Marketing and Consumer Research, 11 ACAD. MARKETING SCI. REV. 1-30 (1997)). 1 Both Appellant and the Examiner erroneously included dependent claim 15 with independent claims 1 and 13 in the statement of the rejection. (App. Br. 5; Ans. 3.) Claim 15 depends from claim 10, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shimizu, Kaji, Palm and Chiu (Ans. 12). Therefore, we include claim 15 with the rejection of claim 10. Appeal 2009-014062 Application 10/509,644 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 14 and 17-20 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 2-3) that the combination of Shimizu and Kaji would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation “wherein the first and the second view points each have view directions that are essentially parallel to each other.” The Examiner acknowledged that Shimizu does not disclose the disputed limitation and, therefore, cited Kaji for teaching a line of sight 31 of the left eye 30 parallel to the line of sight 33 of the right eye 32. (Ans. 4 (referring to Fig. 6).) The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify the stereoscopic imaging system, as taught by Shimizu, to include an apparatus that provides essentially parallel view directions for each eye, as taught by Kaji, because this modification would provide an enhanced stereoscopic experience . . . .” (Ans. 4-5.) We agree with the Examiner. Shimizu “relates to a method in which a plurality of tomographic images . . . are stacked up to thereby obtain a stacked three-dimensional image (three-dimensional original image) and then two-dimensional images obtained by seeing the stacked three-dimensional image from arbitrary directions . . . to construct a three-dimensional image . . . .” (Col. 1, ll. 12- 21.) Figure 12 of Shimizu illustrates a hardware structure for observing a three-dimensional image stereoscopically (col. 4, ll. 63-64) that includes a display memory 90L for a left eye’s three-dimensional image 60L, a display memory 90R for a right eye’s three-dimensional image 60R, and a display 25 (e.g., head-mounted display) (col. 13, ll. 34-41). Appeal 2009-014062 Application 10/509,644 5 Kaji relates to “[a] stereoscopic display device . . . [that] utilizes a display screen for displaying images for right and left eyes.” (Abstract.) Prior art Figure 6 of Kaji illustrates “a schematic diagram depicting the status where a user is looking at images created by computer graphics, on a head mount display.” (Col. 1, ll. 26-28.) As illustrated in Figure 6, a line of sight 31 of a left eye 30 and a line of sight 33 of a right eye 32 are in parallel (col. 3, ll. 63-64), creating three-dimensional stereoscopic images in a head mounted display (col. 1, ll. 39-42). The combination of Shimizu and Kaji is nothing more than incorporating the known method of producing three-dimensional stereoscopic images in a head mounted display using parallel lines of sight for the right and left eyes (e.g., 32 and 30), as taught by Kaji, into Shimizu’s known method of generating stereoscopic images in a head-mounted display, to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4-5) that modifying Shimizu to include the parallel lines of sight direction of Kaji would have been obvious. Appellant argues that “Kaji teaches that using parallel lines of sight results in an image in which an object in close proximity to the viewer appears unnatural to a human.” (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2.) Kaji teaches that an “unnatural feeling” is created when viewing “an object that is close by, such as object B35” in Figure 6, but “poses no problems when looking at an object at infinity.” (Col. 3, l. 65 to col. 4, l. 3.) However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not require viewing objects at a close distance. Appeal 2009-014062 Application 10/509,644 6 Appellant also argues that “the teachings of Kaji teach away from such a modification to Shimizu since Kaji explicitly states that using parallel view directions for objects in close proximity . . . results in an unnatural appearance to a human, and both Shimizu and Kaji teach use of non-parallel view directions.” (App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2-3.) Kaji teaches that using parallel lines of sight for the right eye 32 and the left eye 30 creates an unnatural feeling or is “somewhat inferior” when viewing a close object (e.g., object B35 in Figure 6), rather than “teaching away” from the use of all parallel lines of sight. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Moreover, even if the device is rendered “somewhat inferior” by combining Kaji’s teaching with Shimizu, this combination does not render Shimuzu’s device unsuitable for its intended purpose to produce three-dimensional images. Appellant further argues that “claims 1 and 13 inherently include aspects related to the proximity or distance of the user from the object” and the “specification includes non-limiting examples of suitable internal hollow organs including a blood vessel and the colon . . . .” (Reply Br. 3.) However, the importation of a narrow embodiment into the broader independent claim 1 is improper. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Shimizu and Kaji would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “wherein the first and the second view points each have view directions that are essentially parallel to each other.” Appeal 2009-014062 Application 10/509,644 7 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3, 5, and 14 depend from independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claim 13 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the rejection of claim 13, as well as claims 17-20, which depend from claim 13, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Claim 2 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 8-9) that the combination of Shimizu and Kaji would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 2, which includes the disputed limitation “wherein one of the first and the second view point lies on the view path.” The Examiner found that Figure 16 of Shimizu teaches the disputed limitation. (Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner. Figure 16 of Shimizu illustrates that the “View Point 1” intersects the “View Line Direction 1.” In other words, Figure 16 teaches the limitation “wherein one of the first and the second view point lies on the view path.” Appellant argues that “Shimizu discloses providing a monoscopic view of an image from a single view point on a view line, wherein the view point is stepped along the view line” and “Shimizu also discloses providing a stereoscopic view of an image from two view points that are both shifted off of a view line.” (App. Br. 8.) Appellant further argues that “Shimizu Appeal 2009-014062 Application 10/509,644 8 teaches placing either all of the view points or none of the view points on the view line.” (Id.) However, as found by the Examiner, claim 2 recites “one of the first and the second view point lies on the view path,” and broadly construes this limitation to encompass placing all the view points on the view line, which as Appellant admits, Shimizu teaches. (See Ans. 15.) We find this position reasonable, because the claim recites an open-ended transitional phrase, “comprising,” and does not require that only one view point line on the view path. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Shimizu and Kaji would have rendered obvious dependent claim 2, which includes the limitation “wherein one of the first and the second view point lies on the view path.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4, 6, 8-12, 15 and 16 Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to the rejections of dependent claims 4, 6, 8-12, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See App. Br. 9-10. We sustain the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 13. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6 and 8-20 is affirmed. 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). Appeal 2009-014062 Application 10/509,644 9 AFFIRMED babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation