Ex Parte Rouet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2013

10542122 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEAN-MICHEL ROUET, MAXIM FRADKIN, and
SHERIF MAKRAM-EBEID
____________

Appeal 2010-010847
Application 10/542,122
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-11 and 13-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-010847
Application 10/542,122

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “an image processing
method for automatic adaptation of a 3-D deformable mesh model onto a
substantially tubular surface of an object in a medical image” (Spec. 1:6-8).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. An image data processing method of automatic
adaptation of 3-D surface Model to image features, for Model-
based image segmentation, the method comprising:

creating a deformable tubular mesh model for fitting a 3-
D path based on a centerline of a 3-D tubular object of interest,
the 3-D path comprising a set of ordered points defining a
plurality of path segments, the mesh model having an initial
radius and comprising a plurality of mesh segments
corresponding to the plurality of path segments; and

automatically adapting a length of a mesh radius of each
mesh segment based on a product of the initial radius and a
shrinking factor, the shrinking factor determined based on the
initial radius and a radius of local curvature of the
corresponding path segment.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Flόrez-Valencia (Flόrez-
Valencia et al., 3D Graphical Models for Vascular-stent Pose Simulation,
International Conference on Computer Vision and Graphics (ICCVG02), 1-
8, (25-29 Sept. 2002)), Dumoulin (Dumoulin & Cochelin, Mechanical
Behaviour Modelling of Balloon-Expandable Stents, 33 Journal of
Appeal 2010-010847
Application 10/542,122

3
Biomechanics, 1461-1470 (2000)), Hernández-Hoyos (Hernández-Hoyos et
al., Computer-assisted Analysis of Three-dimensional MR Angiograms, 22
Radiographics, 421-436, (March-April 2002)), Montagnat (Montagnat &
Delingette, A Hybrid Framework for Surface Registration and Deformable
Models, Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition (CVPR ‘97), 1041-1046 (1997)), and Yim (Yim et al,
Vessel Surface Reconstruction With a Tubular Deformable Model, 20 IEEE
Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1411-1421, (Dec. 2001)).
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 7-9, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Flόrez-Valencia, Dumoulin,
Hernández-Hoyos, Montagnat, Yim, and Williams (Williams et al., Rational
Discrete Generalized Cylinders and their Application to Shape Recovery in
Medical Images, Proceedings of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
387-392 (1997)).

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner concludes claim 17 is directed to non-statutory subject
matter in that it claims computer readable media that can include non-
transitory media or a transitory propagating signal (Ans.3-4). Appellants
contend an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand “a signal is not
capable of ‘storing a computer program executable to process data,’” and
thus, claim 17 is tied to the statutory class of storage media (Reply Br. 3).
However, there is no clear and unambiguous disclaimer in the originally
filed Specification stating the computer program is not encoded on a carrier
wave, which is a transitory signal and thus non-statutory subject matter.
Appeal 2010-010847
Application 10/542,122

4
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims
directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se,
which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. §101 as
covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject
matter. . . . A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium
that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may
be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory
elements to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding
the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. . . .

Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2010/week08/TOC.htm#ref20

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding Flόrez-
Valencia in view of Yim discloses Appellants’ invention, particularly the
limitations “product of” and “shrinking factor” as recited in the claims (App.
Br. 7; Ans. 6-7, 15-16).
We first note the claimed method requires only two steps: 1) creating
a deformable tabular mesh model for fitting a 3-D path; and 2) automatically
adapting a length of a mesh radius. The preamble of claim 1 recites an image
data processing method; however, the body of the claim does not recite
displaying an image or an end result of processing of the image. We also
observe that a shrinking factor is merely data. Yim teaches and fairly
suggests a shrinking factor (truncated amount) (Ans. 15-16). Further, there
are no additional steps recited in the claim other than creating and adapting.
We concur with the Examiner that Flόrez-Valencia in combination with Yim
teaches and fairly suggests the claimed two steps of creating and
automatically adapting (Ans. 5-6). We further agree with the Examiner’s
Appeal 2010-010847
Application 10/542,122

5
interpretation of “initial radius” (Ans. 5, 15) and “product of” (Ans.19-20) as
no express definitions are provided in Appellants’ Specification.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s reading
of the claims on the cited combination of references is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. We find the weight of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 17 over Flόrez-
Valencia (and references cited therein) and Yim.
With respect to claims 4, 5, 7-9, and 14-16, the Examiner relies on the
same references used for the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 17,
for independent claim 14 (Ans. 14). As claims 4, 5, and 7-9 depend from
claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to claim 14, Appellants submit this claim, and dependent
claims 15 and 16 are also allowable for the reasons presented with respect to
claim 1 (App. Br. 9). Thus, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 14-16 for the reasons set forth above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 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 2010-010847
Application 10/542,122

6
AFFIRMED

llw