Ex Parte Deschinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

11434445 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/434,445 05/15/2006
45436 7590 10/24/2018
DEAN D. SMALL
THE SMALL PA TENT LAW GROUP LLC
225 S. MERAMEC, STE. 725T
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harald Deschinger
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.
213657 (12553-1295) 3920
EXAMINER
BOR, HELENE CATHERINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2018 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):
Docket@splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARALD DESCHINGER,
PETER FALKENSAMMER, and FRANZ GABEDER1
Appeal2018-000762
Application 11/434,445
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFERD. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--24. Appeal Br. 1. Claim 3 is cancelled. Id. at
4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 General Electric Company is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 4.
Appeal2018-000762
Application 11/434,445
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below.
1. A diagnostic ultrasound system for automatically
displaying multiple planes from 3D ultrasound data set, the
system comprising:
a user interface for designating a reference plane, wherein the
user interface provides multiple predefined view positions, wherein
the coordinate information of the reference plane is stored according
to a save reference plane option within a user interface;
a processor module configured to map the reference plane into a
3D ultrasound data set, the processor module configured to
automatically calculate image planes based on the reference plane and
at least one of the predefined view positions;
a display selectively displaying the image planes associated
with the reference plane and the selected predefined view position;
and
memory storing coordinate information of the reference plane
and relative coordinate information, with respect to the reference
plane, of the predefined view positions.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 4--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Cai (US 2006/0034513 Al; pub. Feb. 16, 2006) and Vara
(US 6,063,030; iss. May 16, 2000).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Cai, Vara, and Abuhamad (US 2005/0251036 Al, pub. Nov. 10, 2005).
2
Appeal2018-000762
Application 11/434,445
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 Unpatentable Over Cai and Vara
Appellants disclose and claim a system ( claims 1, 2, and 4--10) and
method (claims 11-20) for diagnostic ultrasound imaging that automatically
display multiple planes from a 3D ultrasound data set. Appeal Br. 24--26.
The system and method provide the ability to restore and review prior view
positions (Spec. ,r 2) without the user having to recreate prior view positions
by re-entering the prior view data and modes as was done originally (id. ,r 4).
In this regard, claim 1 recites a user interface "wherein the coordinate
information of the reference plane is stored according to a save reference
plane option within a user interface" and also "memory storing coordinate
information of the reference plane and relative coordinate information, with
respect to the reference plane, of the predefined view positions." Claim 2
recites that the coordinate information "is stored automatically." Claim 4
recites that the reference plane is restored "according to a restore reference
plane option within a user interface."2 Appeal Br. 24.
We agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Cai and
Vara render obvious these claimed features and the other features recited in
the claims. In fact, Cai teaches the innovation that Appellants tout in their
Specification - the ability to store coordinate information for a user defined
and/or a preset reference plane, and for view positions predefined relative to
the reference plane, with the ability to recall the reference plane and views.
2 Independent claim 11 recites a method with similar features such as "a user
interface, view position options, a save reference plane option and a restore
reference plane option" with "automatically storing the prior reference plane
option in response to selection of the save reference plane option."
3
Appeal2018-000762
Application 11/434,445
In this regard, the Examiner correctly finds that Cai teaches a system
and method that provide 3D ultrasound imaging with standard and/or preset
views that users can establish, store in memory, and recall to provide images
(views) of scanned organs such as the human heart. Cai ,r,r 7, 30, 34, 35, 48,
Figs. 2-7; Non-Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 5-16. In particular, Cai teaches that a
user can establish standard or preset views and input spatial relationships for
one or more views relative to the user established reference view(s) and can
create templates and landmark descriptions for these user established views
using image data sets. Cai ,r 34. These preset and user defined views and
user input spatial relationships to related views are used to identify the non-
standard view positions in relation to a standard reference plane/view A4C
as illustrated in Figure 4 of Cai. Id. Cai allows users to set a reference plane
and generate other views relative thereto using three-dimensional image
software. Id. ,r,r 7, 10, 20, 30, 34, 35, 44--48, Figs. 2-8; Non-Final Act. 2.
The Examiner reasonably finds that the reference plane and spatial
relationship information that a user defines and/ or presets corresponds to the
claimed "coordinate information." Ans. 9-11. The Examiner correctly finds
that Cai shows a reference plane and predefined view positions in Figure 4
on an X-Y labeled coordinate axis. Id. at 11. Indeed, Cai also teaches that
one or more of the planes (reference or view planes) may be orthogonal to
the user defined view (Cai ,r 38) indicating that the reference and associated
views are defined in at least three dimensions as claimed. Cai also stores a
set of standard or preset views with their spatial relationships to other views
in memory as claimed. Id. ,r 37, Figs. 4--8; Ans. 10. Users can identify a
stored reference plane view, which "provides the locational information for
other views relative to the user identified view." Cai ,r,r 37, 44--48; Ans. 10.
4
Appeal2018-000762
Application 11/434,445
Figure 4 of Cai is reproduced below with Appellants' Figure 5 to
illustrate the similarity of Cai' s user defined plane and its spatially related
views to the claimed reference planes and predefined view positions.
Fig. 4 of Cai shows a user defined or preset view A4C (reference
plane) and other views (A2C, Long Axis, Short Axis) defined in a spatial
relationship thereto. Cai ,r,r 30-39. These planes/views can be generated
automatically when a user identifies or sets a view that is stored with spatial
relationship coordinate data of other views. Id. ,r,r 20, 34--39. Fig. 5 shows
Appellants' defined reference planes 304, 401, 402, which are stored with
coordinates for images 303, 305, 306, 404--406, 407--409. Spec. ,r,r 29, 32.
Figure 5 of Cai, reproduced below, illustrates a user defined reference
plane and spatially related planes used to provide images of a human heart.
FIG.5
Reference plane A4C is shown with other views. Cai ,r,r 36-38.
5
Appeal2018-000762
Application 11/434,445
Cai discloses that a button can be depressed to provide images taken
along reference plane A4C and spatially related views 62, 64, 66. Id. ,r 36.
We agree with the Examiner that Cai teaches that reference planes and
spatially related views are stored automatically, as recited in claim 2, and are
recalled, as recited in claim 4. Non-Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 8-9, 12-13. In this
regard, and in regards to claim 1, Cai further teaches that users input data to
adjust the spatial relationship of a preset or standard view (reference plane)
and other views associated therewith and these views and spatial relationship
(coordinates) are stored automatically for later examination, i.e., for later
recall. Cai ,r,r 39, 48; see Spec. ,r,r 29-30 (user defined reference planes are
saved for subsequent reuse to calculate image planes associated therewith).
The Examiner finds that Cai does not disclose the particulars of a user
interface used to store or recall the coordinate information so the Examiner
looks to Vara for such teachings. Non-Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 11-12. Use of
such known techniques from Vara's ultrasound imaging system to improve
Cai's ultrasound imaging system in similar, predictable ways is obvious
unless its application is shown to be beyond the level of ordinary skill in the
art. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
findings or reasoning. We agree with Appellants that Vara teaches a user
interface with SA VE and RECALL buttons used to save and recall images,
and claims 1 and 4 require a user interface that saves and recalls a reference
plane. Appeal Br. 10-13, 17-22. However, Cai already teaches a system
that saves coordinate information for a reference plane. The Examiner relies
on Vara to teach a user interface with save and recall options for saving and
recalling ultrasound system data. Non-Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 11-13, 15-16.
6
Appeal2018-000762
Application 11/434,445
The Examiner's reason for using Vara's save and recall options on
Cai is supported by rational underpinnings based on the express teachings of
Vara that these features enable a user to store ultrasound data in memory and
recall that data. Id. ( citing Vara, 7 :20-46). Indeed, Cai also teaches that it is
desirable to store and recall ultrasound imaging data (Cai ,r 27) and preset or
user defined reference planes and views defined in spatial relationship to the
reference plane for diagnosing patients (see id. ,r,r 27--48). See Ans. 11-12.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants' arguments that claim 1 requires
coordinate information of a reference plane to be stored and Vara only stores
image data (Appeal Br. 10-21) are not persuasive because such arguments
amount to individual attacks on the references where the Examiner relies on
their combined teachings to render claim 1 obvious. Appellants' arguments
do not explain why such a combination is improper. See Ans. 12.
Nor have Appellants explained persuasively why Cai's storage of user
defined/preset reference planes and spatial information of related planes of
view in three dimensions does not store coordinate information as claimed.
Appellants argue "Figure 4 of Cai is merely a 'graphical representation of
the relationship between four different standard views in one embodiment"'
and they relate to actual images. Appeal Br. 13 ( citing Cai ,r 16). However,
Cai treats spatially oriented reference planes/viewing planes 60, 62, 64, 66
as distinct from images 70-76 generated from these planes. Cai ,r,r 29, 34--
36, Fig. 5. Appellants disclose the claimed coordinates include translation
coordinates representing translation along X, Y, and Z axes, and rotational
coordinates representing rotation about X, Y, and Z axes. Spec. ,r 31. Cai
discloses similar reference and viewing planes translated and rotated along
three orthogonal X, Y, and Z axes in Figures 3-8. Cai ,r,r 30, 31, 34--48.
7
Appeal2018-000762
Application 11/434,445
Appellants' system allows a user to select a plane of reference in a
volume of interest of a patient, map the reference plane into a three-
dimensional reference coordinate system, and save/store it so one or more
image planes of interest can be calculated within the three-dimensional
reference coordinate. Spec. ,r 34. Cai's ultrasound system and method
allow a user to select a reference plane through a volume of interest and save
that preset or user defined reference plane in a three dimensional coordinate
system so other view positions are calculated in a spatial relationship to the
reference plane and provided on demand. See Cai ,r,r 30-48, Figs. 3-8.
Neither claim 1 nor claim 11 recites features of the claimed reference
plane or coordinate information, nor do Appellants argue any such features,
that distinguish claims 1 and 11 over the system and method taught by Cai
as modified by Vara. In this regard, Cai teaches that different sets of views
can be used so different practice groups may establish different sets of views
useful for diagnosis. Id. ,r 30, Figs. 3, 4, 8. Users can establish at least one
non-standard view (reference plane) and input spatial relationships of other
viewing positions relative to the user-defined reference plane on a Cartesian
coordinate system in Figures 3-8. Id. ,r 34. The other views are generated
and stored automatically with the defined reference plane by a processor that
can recall the stored spatial relationships (i.e., coordinate information) from
memory as recited in claims 1, 2, 4, and 11. Id. ,r,r 34--39; Ans. 14--15.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and
dependent claims 2 and 4. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims
5-10 and 12-20, which Appellants do not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
8
Appeal2018-000762
Application 11/434,445
Claims 21-24 Unpatentable Over Cai, Vara, and Abuhamad
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 21-24 based on their
dependence from independent claim 1 or 11. Appeal Br. 23. Because we
sustain the rejections of claims 1 and 11, this argument is not persuasive, as
we also sustain the rejection of claims 21-24.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4--24.
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
9