Ex Parte Holthuizen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

13392928 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/392,928 02/28/2012 Ronaldus Frederik Johannes Holthuizen
24737 7590 06/20/2016
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.
2009P01460WOUS 5407
EXAMINER
TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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 RONALDUS FREDERIK JOHANNES HOLTHUIZEN,
JOHAN MICHIEL DEN HARDER, and WENDY DE KOK
Appeal2014-006247
Application 13/392,928
Technology Center 3700
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
This Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involves claims 1-13 (App. Br.
1). Examiner entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal2014-006247
Application 13/392,928
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention "relates to an apparatus for acquiring diagnostic
information" (Spec. 1:2). Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 are representative
and reproduced in the Claims Appendix of Appellants' Appeal Brief.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Springorum2 and Boeing. 3
Claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Springorum, Boeing, and Okerlund.4
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Springorum, Boeing, and Sugiura. 5
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
We adopt Examiner's findings concerning the scope and content of
the prior art (Ans. 3-7), and repeat the following findings for emphasis.
FF 1. Springorum suggests
The apparatus (1) comprises an input (2) for receiving a
suitable source image data of an object. The core of the apparatus
(1) is formed by a control unit ( 4) which is arranged to load image
data from the input (2) and determine a spatial position and
orientation of a portion of the object and to automatically
2 Springorum et al., US 2008/0267509 Al, published Oct. 30, 2008.
3 Boeing et al., US 2006/0193437 Al, published Aug. 31, 2006.
4 Okerlund et al., US 2004/0087850 Al, published May 6, 2004.
5 Sugiura, US 2009/0264731 Al, published Oct. 22, 2009.
2
Appeal2014-006247
Application 13/392,928
calculate actual parameters ( 4a) of the imaging geometry based
on said position and orientation and using default parameters if
the imaging geometry, selected by the control unit ( 4) in
accordance with the portion of the object. ... The apparatus (1)
according to the invention comprises a recognition module (7)
arranged to determine a spatial position and orientation of the
portion of the object with respect to a coordinate system of an
imaging apparatus conceived to use the actual parameters of the
imaging geometry provided by the apparatus (1 ). When the
position and orientation (7a) of the portion of the object with
respect to the coordinate system of the data acquisition module
is established, the control unit calculates actual parameters (4) of
the imaging geometry based on a suitable matching between the
spatial position and orientation (7a) of the portion of the object
conceived to be imaged and the default parameters of the
imaging geometry (3). Preferably, the apparatus (1) further
comprises a suitably arranged user interface (5) for allowing an
adjustment of automatically established actual parameters of the
imaging geometry by a user
(Springorum Abstract; see also Ans. 4.)
FF 2. Springorum suggests that "the apparatus further comprises a user
interface arranged to enable an adjustment of the actual parameters of the
imaging geometry by a user" (Springorum i-f 15; see also Ans. 4).
FF 3. Springorum suggests
It is found to be advantageous to allow the user to modify
the setting of the automatically generated parameters of the
imaging geometry. For medical applications, this is particularly
advantageous, as some internal changes of the object may occur
between the instances the default parameters were established
and the instance a new acquisition of the image data may be
required. In case when the default parameters are used for an
automatic planning of the imaging geometry for a different
object, notably a patient, there is a possibility that the scan planes
have to be modified, for example not to intercept critical areas.
In case the user has adjusted the parameters of the imaging
3
Appeal2014-006247
Application 13/392,928
geometry, the adjusted parameters are preferably stored and are
subsequently made available to the data acquisition module.
(Springorum i-f 16; see also Ans. 4.)
FF 4. Springorum suggests
According to this technical measure, the control unit is
arranged to overrule the automatically determined actual
parameters of the imaging geometry by the adjusted parameters
for planning of the new scan. This technical measure ensures a
quality control of the automatic planning procedure, enabling the
apparatus according to the invention to explore user's expertise
to modify the automatically defined prescription accordingly, if
required.
(Springorum i-f 18; see also Ans. 4.)
FF 5. Springorum suggests
Preferably, the apparatus 1 further comprises a suitably
arranged user interface 5 for allowing an adjustment of
automatically established actual parameters of the imaging
geometry by a user. Preferably, such adjustment is carried out
using a suitable graphic representation of the resulting imaging
planes, whereby the user operates a suitable pointing device to
displace the resulting imaging planes with respect to the portion
of the object. The control unit 4 updates the actual parameters of
the imaging geometry accordingly.
(Springorum i-f 38; see also Ans. 4.)
FF 6. Springorum suggests that "[p ]referably, a user interaction is allowed
at step 79, whereby the actual imaging geometry may be adjusted" and that
"[p ]referably, the user's adjustments are used to adapt the stored default
parameters 77 a, which is carried out at step 77" (Springorum i-f 4 7; see also
Ans. 4).
FF 7. Boeing suggests
A method 1s described for controlling an imaging
modality. The method includes acquiring data specific to an
4
Appeal2014-006247
Application 13/392,928
examination object and automatically selecting a raw data record
from a number of raw data records on the basis of the data
specific to the examination object. The method further includes
producing an image on the basis of the selected raw data record
and by using a selected control parameter set. The produced
image is then output to a user.
(Boeing Abstract; see also Ans. 4.)
FF 8. Boeing suggests
Implemented on the processor 6 as further components of
at least one embodiment of the invention are a selection device
13 for selecting an exemplary raw data record RD from the
memory 7, and a parameter modification device 14 by which a
control parameter set SP, SPs can be changed as a function of
change commands that the user can input via the user interface
15.
(Boeing i-f 54; see also Ans. 4.)
ANALYSIS
The combination of Springorum and Boeing:
Appellants' independent claims 1, requires, inter alia, "the user
interface displays for every step of the selected series of scanning steps
predefined scanning parameters pertaining to the example anatomy" (see
Appellants' claim 1 ). Appellants' independent claims 8 and 13, similarly
requires, inter alia, "displaying for every step of a selected series of
scanning steps predefined scanning parameters pertaining to the example
anatomy" (see Appellants' claims 1, 8, and 13).
Based on the combination of Springorum and Boeing, Examiner finds
that "Boeing et al[.] teach in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein the
user interface is arranged to have a user select the actual imaging parameters
to be used ([0054 ])" and concludes that, at the time of Appellants' invention
5
Appeal2014-006247
Application 13/392,928
was made, it would have been obvious to "do so as it would [allow] user
ability to adjust scanning parameters based on a personal preference" (Ans.
4).
We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 3-7; FF 1-8) and agree that the
claims are obvious over Springorum and Boeing. We address Appellants'
arguments below.
We recognize, but are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that
claim 1 does not recite that images of the example anatomy allow
for predefined scanning steps, or that images of the example
anatomy were used to display predefined scanning parameters.
Claim 1 recites, "the user interface displays for every step of the
selected series of scanning steps predefined scanning parameters
pertaining to the example anatomy." The Applicants respectfully
submit that Springorum neither discloses nor suggests this
recitation.
Spingorum [sic] discloses a process that automatically
determines the position and the orientation of the portion of an
object with respect to a coordinate system. (Springorum, i-f
[0042]). . . . However, the actual scanning procedure of
Spingorum [sic] does not describe or suggest a user interface that
"displays for every step of the selected series of scanning steps
predefined scanning parameters pertaining to the example
anatomy," during the actual scanning procedure.
(App. Br. 3--4; see also Reply Br. 3--4.) Appellants also contend that the
Specification, with reference to Fig. 2, states that "the user interface 4
displays for each single step in the selected series of scanning steps
predefined scanning parameters pertaining to the example anatomy 7 in a
window 6' of a visual display unit 6." (See Specification, p. 4, 1. 33 -p. 5,
1. 2.)
6
Appeal2014-006247
Application 13/392,928
However, there is never any discussion of how Springorum
discloses displaying the predefined scanning parameters
pertaining to the example anatomy for every scanning step. In
fact, the only mention of displaying in the Examiner's discussion
is the displaying of the final parameters that are not for the
example anatomy, but rather the anatomy that is to be scanned.
Furthermore, there is never any discussion that even these final
parameters are displayed for each single step of the scanning
process.
(Reply Br. 4--5.) As Examiner explains,
Springorum et al[.] disclose default parameters of the imaging
geometry are selected and actual parameters of the imaging
geometry are then established of a portion of the object (example
anatomy). The actual imaging geometry may be adjusted,
resulting in the final parameters (predefined scanning
parameters) of the imaging geometry which are then output
(displayed) (paragraph [0047]).
(Ans. 6-7; FF 1---6.) Moreover, Appellants do not define what "every step,"
"selected series of scanning steps," and "example anatomy" encompass, and
the claims do not require the steps be performed "during the actual scanning
procedure." "[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See
also In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) ("[A]ppellant's
arguments fail from the outset because ... they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.").
Moreover, the rejection is not for anticipation but rather for
obviousness. When Springorum teaches a "user interface 5 for allowing an
adjustment of automatically established actual parameters" (FF 5) and
Boeing teaches that "control parameter set ... can be changed as a function
of change commands that the user can input via the user interface" (FF 8),
the ordinary artisan have found it obvious to display of these parameters to
7
Appeal2014-006247
Application 13/392,928
the user for as many steps as desired, including all steps. Therefore, we are
not persuaded by Appellants' intimation to the contrary.
The combination of Springorum, Boeing, and Okerlund:
Regarding the rejection of claims 3, 4, 10, and 11, Appellants contend
that "Okerlund does not cure the above-identified deficiencies of Spingorum
[sic] and Boeing with regard to claims 1 and 8" (App. Br. 5). Having found
no deficiency in the combination of Springorum and Boeing as it relates to
Appellants' claims 1 and 8, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention
to the contrary.
The combination of Springorum, Boeing, and Sugiura:
Regarding the rejection of claim 7, Appellants contend that "Sugi[u]ra
does not cure the above-identified deficiencies of Spingorum [sic] and
Boeing" with regard to claims 1 and 8 (id.). Having found no deficiency in
the combination of Springorum and Boeing of as it relates to Appellants'
claim 1, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention to the contrary.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of the evidence relied upon by Examiner supports
a conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 1, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Springorum and Boeing is affirmed.
Because they were not separately argued, claims 2, 5, and 6 fall with claim
1, and claims 9 and 12 fall with claim 8.
8
Appeal2014-006247
Application 13/392,928
The rejection of claim 3, 4, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Springorum, Boeing, and Okerlund is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Springorum, Boeing, and Sugiura is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9