Ex Parte BRAUN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2018

14519219 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/519,219 10/21/2014
30596 7590 12/28/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O.BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harald BRAUN
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.
32860-002320-US 4281
EXAMINER
WU,CHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2018 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
siemensgroup@hdp.com
jhill@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARALD BRAUN, MATTHIAS FENCHEL, and
HARALD H. QUICK
Appeal2018-004463 1
Application 14/ 519,219
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft." App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004463
Application 14/ 519,219
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "a method for displaying medical image
data." Abstract. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending; claims 1 and 16 are
independent. See App. Br. 19-24. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference ( emphasis and formatting added):
1. A method for displaying medical image data, the method
compnsmg:
capturing medical image data;
determining at least one image quality parameter for at
least one image of the medical image data,
the at least one image quality parameter indicative
of an image quality of the at least one image based on at least one
of an item of spatial information and an item of temporal
information; and
displaying the at least one image together with a
representation of the at least one image quality parameter on a
display unit,
the representation of the at least one image quality
parameter including a profile of a distribution of the at least one
image quality parameter,
the profile of the distribution of the at least one
image quality parameter arranged at least one of (i) spatially
adjacent to the display of the at least one image on the display
unit or (ii) overlaid on the display of the at least one image on
the display unit.
References and Re} ections2
Claims 1, 2, 5-14 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over de Oliveira (US 2012/0010495 Al; Jan. 12,
2 The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection is withdrawn due to the
cancelation of claim 15. Ans. 2
2
Appeal2018-004463
Application 14/ 519,219
2012), Wang (US 2010/0086189 Al; Apr. 8, 2010), and Peacock (US
2011/0087087 Al; Apr. 14, 2011). Final Act. 6; Ans. 2.
Claims 3, 4, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over de Oliveira, Wang, Peacock, and Lala (US
2014/0146068 Al; May 29, 2014). Final Act. 17; Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the issues raised by
Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP § 1205.02; 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded the Examiner errs; we adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the
following for emphasis.
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1, because "de
Oliveira in view of Wang, and further in view of Peacock, fails to teach or
fairly suggest all features of claim 1." App. Br. 7-8. Particularly,
Appellants contend "Peacock do[es] not disclose or fairly suggest display of
any representation of an image quality parameter," as claimed, because
"[t]he cited portions of Peacock merely disclose results of an evaluation of
spine discs, without any indication of an image quality parameter ( or
representation thereof) spatially adjacent to, or overlaying, the image." App.
Br. 10-11. Appellants further contend that, in issuing the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103, "the Office has failed to provide the requisite articulated
3
Appeal2018-004463
Application 14/ 519,219
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." App. Br. 12-13.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. First, we note Appellants'
arguments with respect to Peacock are unpersuasive for not being responsive
to the Examiner's rejection. Specifically, Appellants' arguments focus on
the teachings of Peacock (see, e.g., App. Br. 8, 11 ), whereas the Examiner
relies on the combination of de Oliveira, Wang, and Peacock for teaching
the claimed representation of an image quality parameter:
Oliveira teaches optimizing a quality parameter (a signal-to-
noise ratio) of medical images. Prior art Wang expressly teaches
representing spatially distributed quality parameters associated
with different regions of interest in a medical image ([0047] "an
obtained CNR for an image or for an ROI within an image can
be compared against a statistical distribution of CNR values, thus
providing a probability measurement of the relative quality of an
image." [0036] "Results reporting step 8150 may provide a
summary CNR value for the complete image or, alternately, may
provide individual CNR values that are associated with each
ROI."). Wang does not expressly provide an example of
representing the quality parameters "spatially adjacent to" or
"overlaid on" the medical image. Prior art Peacock teaches
representing diagnosing data spatially adjacent to or overlaid on
a medical image. For example see Peacock [O 145], Figs. 32A and
32B.
Ans. 4. Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's findings with respect to
de Oliveira and Wang; nor do Appellants show the Examiner errs in finding
Peacock teaches displaying data overlaid or adjacent to an image. See App.
Br. 7-9; Final Act. 9; Peacock Abstract ("A diagnostic display provides a
scaled, color coded legend and indication of results for each disc analyzed as
an overlay."). As such, Appellants do not show the combination of de
Oliveira, Wang, and Peacock fails to teach or suggest the disputed
4
Appeal2018-004463
Application 14/ 519,219
limitations. See Final Act. 6-9; see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.").
Further, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner's reasoning is "merely conclusory, and do[ es] not provide the
requisite reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would
have been obvious." App. Br. 13 (quotations omitted). "If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007); see
also id. at 419 ("The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents."). Here, we find no error in the Examiner's
determination that the recited display arrangement does not distinguish over
the applied prior art. See Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 4---6.
As discussed above, placing information spatially adjacent or overlaid
on an image is well known within the medical imaging arts. See Ans. 4--5;
Peacock Figs. 32A-32B. Appellants, in contrast, have not shown the recited
arrangement of information achieves unexpected results or was outside the
capabilities of one of skill in the art. See Wang ,r 36 ("results reporting step
S 150 then provides the results of CNR computation in some way"); Peacock
Abstract; ,r 72 ( describing "the display overlay"). 3 Thus, we agree with the
3 Additionally, we note Peacock explains that embodiments of the disclosed
invention, including the overlay of information, provide a "reliable
approach" (Peacock, Abstract) and a "useful diagnostic display to indicate
5
Appeal2018-004463
Application 14/ 519,219
Examiner that the combination of de Oliveira, Wang, and Peacock is a
combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does no
more than yield predictable results - an obvious improvement. See Ans. 6;
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-17; cf In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)
("the particular placement of the contact provides no novel or unexpected
result," rather, it is "an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of
the art .... [as the] use of a spring-loaded contact in the manner claimed is
well known with the common flashlight").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1.
B. Dependent Claim 9
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 9, because none
of the cited portions "in de Oliveira discloses or fairly suggests any
'spatially resolved distribution' of an image quality parameter," as claimed.
App. Br. 15. Appellants further argue "the Office has failed to establish that
the cited art discloses or fairly suggests 'a value of the at least one image
quality parameter of the further medical image data is a minimum value' as
required" (Reply Br. 10), because "while optimizing the SNR may result in a
minimum noise-to-signal ratio, it also does not necessarily follow that the
value of the noise that provides the minimum noise-to-signal ratio SNR is a
minimum noise value, either relative or otherwise" (Reply Br. 9-10).
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 9 recites: 1)
''planning a re-measurement for capturing further medical image data by a
the results in overlay context onto the MRI image itself." (Peacock ,r 291,
describing Figs. 32A-32B).
6
Appeal2018-004463
Application 14/ 519,219
medical imaging device based on a spatially resolved distribution of the at
least one image quality parameter," and 2) "wherein a value of the at least
one image quality parameter of the further medical image data is a minimum
value" ( emphases added). First, we agree with the Examiner that the cited
references teach or suggest the claimed planning step, because de Oliveira
teaches generating further images if the quality inspection fails ( de Oliveira
,r 86; Fig. 5), and both Wang and Peacock teach using parameters (e.g.,
contrast-to-noise ratios in Wang) that are associated with various regions of
interest in the image (Wang ,r,r 13, 36; Peacock ,r 145). See Ans. 7-8.
Appellants do not challenge these findings. See App. Br. 14--16.
Second, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of references renders obvious the claimed wherein clause. See
Ans. 8-9. The Examiner finds the limitation is taught or suggested by de
Oliveira's teaching of iterating to improve the image quality, because the
iterations improve the signal to noise ratio and "[i]t follows that the noise-to-
signal ratio (reciprocal of signal-to-noise) is a minimum value." Ans. 9.
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's mapping of de Olivia's ratio to
the claimed "a value." See, e.g., Reply Br. 10 ("Indeed, what is optimized is
the ratio of noise-to-signal, not the signal or the noise individually.").
Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 is in error.
Separately, we note the Examiner correctly identifies that "[c]laim 9
does not expressly specify an interval or a set within which the minimum
value is defined." Ans. 8. Thus, the claim does not place particular
constraints on how to determine "a value" as recited. Moreover, dependent
claim 9 recites a single step of "planning," which can be an entirely mental
step. In the event of further prosecution, Appellants and the Examiner may
7
Appeal2018-004463
Application 14/ 519,219
wish to determine whether the limitations of claim 9 are entitled to
patentable weight. See Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp.
Prod. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("Because claim
limitations directed to mental steps may attempt to capture informational
content, they may be considered printed matter lacking patentable weight in
an obviousness analysis," and "a limitation that merely claims information
by incorporating that information into a mental step will receive patentable
weight only if the limitation is functionally related to the substrate.").
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 9. Appellants advance no further substantive argument on
the remaining claims. See App. Br. 14 and 16-18. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejections of claims of 2-14 and 16-21 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 16-21 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8