Ex Parte Schaefer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2019

14378179 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/378,179 08/12/2014 Dirk Schaefer
24737 7590 04/01/2019
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.
2011P02263WOUS 3736
EXAMINER
SAKAMOTO, COLIN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIRK SCHAEFER, AXEL THRAN, and
THOMAS KOEHLER
Appeal2018---006479
Application 14/378, 179
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-006479
Application 14/378, 179
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-12. Claim 7 was cancelled during
prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims are directed generally "to spectral imaging and
more particularly to determining a suitable tube voltage for a spectral
volume scan based on two or more two-----dimensional (2D) projection scans
(scanograms) performed at two or more kVps from approximately the same
acquisition view." Spec. 1, 11. 1-5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An imaging system, comprising:
a radiation source configured to switch between at least
two different peak emission voltages (kVps) and emit radiation
that traverses an examination region and a portion of a subject
therein, wherein the emitted radiation has an energy spectrum
corresponding to the peak emission voltage;
a console configured to receive an input to set the at least
two peak emission voltages for a 2D projection scan;
a detector array configured to detect radiation emitted by
the radiation source that traverses the examination region and the
portion of the subject therein and generate a signal indicative
thereof, which includes attenuation values; and
a processor configured to decompose a set of attenuation
values generated for the 2D projection scan into a first set of
attenuation values for a first of the at least two different peak
emission voltages and a second set of attenuation values for a
second of the at least two different peak emission voltages and
recommend a set of at least the two peak emission voltages for a
volume scan performed with the radiation source and detector
array.
2
Appeal2018-006479
Application 14/378, 179
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1---6 and 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) or first
paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner's sole basis for rejecting the claims at issue is lack of
written description support due to the claims allegedly lacking "any
algorithm that sufficiently describes- given an input ... -how to arrive at
the output ... from the input." Final Act. 3. The Examiner appears to require
the Specification to disclose an equation or formula in order to satisfy the
requirement of an algorithm, but this is not necessary. See Ans. 5, 8-12. As
noted by Appellants, all that is required is "the necessary steps and/or flow
charts that perform the claimed invention. Reply Br. 2 ( citing MPEP
§2161); Appeal Br. 3 (same).
We agree with Appellants that "the specification recites an algorithm
that describes, given an input (two sets of attenuation values), how the
processor arrives at the output (recommending two peak emission voltages)
as the specification describes the steps needed to obtain the output based on
the input." App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants are correct that
the Specification discloses an algorithm via the four necessary steps to arrive
at a recommended scan parameter and therefore adequately describes how to
recommend a set of at least two peak emission voltages as claimed. Reply
Br. at 3. It is unclear from the Examiner's rejection how this is an
insufficient description of the requisite algorithm or the claimed invention.
3
Appeal2018-006479
Application 14/378, 179
Furthermore, the Examiner appears to acknowledge that had
Appellants disclosed an LUT/map then the algorithm would be sufficiently
disclosed. Ans. 13. We agree with Appellants that "the contents of the
map/LUT is disclosed (the map is based on a predetermined tradeoff
between risk of photon starvation and spectral performance)." Reply Br. 3;
see Appeal Br. 3--4 (citing Spec. 4:16-5:17). As such, the rejection is also
improper for this reason. The Specification adequately describes to a person
of ordinary skill in the art how to decompose a set of attenuation values
generated for the 2D projection scan and recommend a set of at least the two
peak emission voltages for a volume scan performed with the radiation
source and detector array" as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1---6 and 8-12.
REVERSED
4