Ex Parte Schaefer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2016

12445752 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/445,752 04/16/2009 Dirk Schaefer
24737 7590 11/18/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2006P01276WOUS 1894
EXAMINER
HAJNIK, DANIEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIRK SCHAEFER and MICHAEL GRASS
Appeal2016-003404
Application 12/445,752
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1 and 3-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2016-003404
Application 12/445,752
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for building a 4 D reconstruction of a region of
interest exhibiting multiple phases of periodic motion, the
method comprising:
(i) building, with a processor, a plurality of 3D
reconstructions using a plurality of subsets of 2-D projections
which are identified from a set of 2-D projections, wherein each
of the plurality of subsets of the 2-D projections corresponds to
a different motion phase of the region of interest and each of the
3D reconstructions corresponds to a different one of the
plurality of subsets; and
(ii) deriving, with the processor, one or more 3D model
segments from each of said plurality of 3D reconstructions,
wherein a plurality of 3D model segments are formed thereby,
and wherein each of the one or more 3D model segments is
derived from a single one of the plurality of 3 D reconstructions,
wherein, the plurality of derived 3D model segments forms a
4 D reconstruction of the region of interest.
I?.£] ectzons
Claims 1, 3, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Langan (US 2006/0133564 Al, June 22, 2006). Final Act. 2-
7.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Langan and Leach (US 2007/0127809 Al, June 7, 2007).
Final Act. 7-9.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Langan and Pan (US 2007/0036418 Al, Feb. 15, 2007).
Final Act. 10-12.
2
Appeal2016-003404
Application 12/445,752
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Langan, Pan, and Webler (US 2007/0167801 Al, July 19, 2007). Final
Act. 12-13.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Langan and Webler. Final Act. 13-15.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia (emphasis added), "deriving,
... one or more 3D model segments from each of said plurality of 3D
reconstructions, wherein a plurality of 3D model segments are formed
thereby, and wherein each of the one or more 3D model segments is derived
from a single one of the plurality of 3 D reconstructions." 1
Appellants argue Langan does not disclose this limitation. App. Br.
4--5; Reply Br. 2--4.
In particular, Appellants argue, and we agree, in Langan,
Paragraph [0053] states the desired motion-corrected
reconstructions (plural) are associated spatially, e.g., spatially
proximate or adjacent images may be ordered or combined to
generate a static volume rendering at one instant in the cardiac
cycle. Hence, when considering claim 1 as a whole, Langan et
al., step 84 of Figure 2 and paragraph [0053], does not read on
claim 1 .... Langan et al. explicitly requires generating the
static volume rendering by spatially associating more than a
single 3D reconstruction (i.e., the reconstructions 84).
Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellants as our interpretation of the disclosure of
Langan coincides with that of Appellants. See App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2--4.
1 Claims 12 and 14 recite similar subject matter.
3
Appeal2016-003404
Application 12/445,752
We conclude that the Examiner's findings are not supported by Langan for
the reasons set forth by Appellants.
Therefore, on this record, we find the weight of the evidence supports
the positions articulated by Appellants in the briefs. Accordingly, as such,
we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 12, and 14.
Because we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 14 on
appeal, we also reverse the rejections of dependent claims 3-11, 13, and 15-
20, which depends on claims 1, 12, and 14 respectively.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4