Ex Parte Lobregt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2012

10509644 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2012)

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