Ex Parte Geller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2016

12676641 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/676,641 03/05/2010 Dieter Geller
24737 7590 08/11/2016
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.
2007P01703WOUS 4072
EXAMINER
ELBINGER, STEVEN Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2016 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 DIETER GELLER and HELKO LEHMANN
Appeal 2014-008236
Application 12/676,641 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT A. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-19, which are the only claims pending. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Koninklijke Philips Electronics
N.V. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008236
Application 12/676,641
The invention relates to visualizing an object of interest comprised in
a volume of an image dataset. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system for visualizing an object of interest comprised
in a volume of an image dataset, the system comprising:
a path hardware unit that specifies a path in the volume
of the image dataset on the basis of the object of interest;
a location hardware unit that determines a location on a
projection ray through the volume of the image dataset on the
basis of the specified path; and
a value hardware unit that computes a projected gray
value corresponding to the projection ray on the basis of the
determined location on the projection ray.
App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fenster et al. (US 6334847 Bl, issued Jan.
1, 2002) ("Fenster"). Final Act. 3-11.
Claims 11and18 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fenster in view of Raman et al. (US 2005/0195189
Al, published Sept. 8, 2005) ("Raman"). Final Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Fenster does not disclose the claim 1 limitations
(emphasis added):
a path hardware unit that specifies a path in the volume of
the image dataset on the basis of the object of interest; and
2
Appeal2014-008236
Application 12/676,641
a value hard\~1are unit that compittes a projected gra}'
value corresponding to the projection ray on the basis of the
determined location on the projection ray.
App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3.
Regarding the limitation "specifies a path ... "Appellants argue
Fenster discloses a scan path of an ultrasound probe in connection with
scanning a patient. App. Br. 5 (citing col. 1, 11. 61---65). According to
Appellants, Fenster's linear scanning path Z acquires a succession of 2-D
images of a target volume of a patient and, therefore, is directed toward data
acquisition, i.e., the data acquisition path of the probe, and does not disclose
any post of or image processing of generated image data. Id.
The Examiner finds Fenster's linear path Z acquires a succession of
2D images (X, Y) of a target volume and "specifies a path" under the
broadest reasonable interpretation. Ans. 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner
finds Fenster:
specifies a path (a wide path) in the volume (a combination of
the 2D images produce a volume) of the image dataset on the
basis of the object of interest. Fenster (column 2 lines 35-44)
uses the set of2D images (X,Y) to provide a "thick-plane" region
of interest. Thus, the Examiner respectfully submits that Fenster
discloses specifying a path in a volume of the image dataset on
the basis of the object of interest.
Ans. 3.
Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
However, great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the
3
Appeal2014-008236
Application 12/676,641
Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d
1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and, instead, agree
with the above Examiner's conclusions and findings. Appellants present no
persuasive evidence that the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonable or
overbroad, nor that the Examiner's interpretation is not consistent with the
use of the term "path" in the Specification. See Spec. 20, 11. 23-28.
Appellants argue Fenster discloses "limiting ray depth for image
processing and certain 3-D imaging techniques" but does not disclose the
limitation "computes a projected gray value corresponding to the projection
ray on the basis of the determined location on the projection ray." App. Br.
6 (citing col. 2, 11. 58---64, col. 3, 11. 1--4). See also Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner finds:
Fenster (column 2 lines 58-64) discloses setting a ray-depth with user
selected limits. The voxels within these limits are then processed to
produce a 30 image. Fenster (column 2 lines 45-56) processes the
voxels meeting the user selected limits with a user selected imaging
technique, the results of which are projected onto the displayed image.
Fenster (column 3 lines 1-4) describes the set of user selected imaging
techniques which comprise texture mapping, maximum intensity
projection, and ray summation. Fenster (column 9 lines 56-63) provides
details of the pixels in the 2D images. The 2D images are grayscale
images. Thus, the Examiner respectfully submits that Fenster discloses
computing a projected gray value (with one of the imaging techniques
on gray voxels) corresponding to the projection ray (the user sets a ray-
depth) on the basis of the determined location on the projection ray
(using the ray-depth limits selected by the user). (Emphasis added).
Ans. 3.
4
Appeal2014-008236
Application 12/676,641
\Ve are not persuaded by i~ .. ppellants' arguments and, instead, agree
with the above Examiner's findings.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Fenster discloses the
disputed limitations as required for anticipation. A claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly
or inherently described in a single prior art reference, and arranged as
required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 5 and 8 which recite the disputed limitations and are
argued together with claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2--4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-17, and 19 as these claims are not argued
separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 11
and 18, i~ .. ppellants rely on the dependency to independent claims l and 5,
discussed supra, and argue Raman fails to cure the deficiencies of Fenster.
App. Br. 7. As we find no deficiency in Fenster, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 11 and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5