Ex Parte Kanitsar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12134615 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/134,615 06/06/2008
60405 7590 07/05/2016
AGFA
c/o KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Armin Kanitsar
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.
55505.303 1995
EXAMINER
CHIN, MICHELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLA W.COM
uspto@kbiplaw.com
sfunk@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARMIN KANITSAR, PETER KOHLMANN,
STEP AN BRUCKNER, M. EDUARD GROELLER,
RAINER WEGENKITTL, and LUKAS MROZ
Appeal2014-009235
Application 12/134,615
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009235
Application 12/134,615
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1---6, 8-10, 12-22, and 24--35, which constitute all of the claims
pending in the application. (App. Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
volume rendering of medical data sets. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1, reproduced
below with disputed limitations italicized, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. Method for volume rendering of medical data sets
compnsmg:
acquiring a medical data set of a patient,
displaying at least one slice view of the acquired medical
data set,
enabling user-selection of a position on a structure of
interest (SOI) in the at least one displayed slice view, and
displaying a volume rendering of the structure of interest
(SOI) based on one or more first parameters, said first
parameters characterizing the slice view of the displayed
volume rendering of the structure of interest (SOI),
wherein said first parameters are determined
automatically by considering the user selected position and one
or more second parameters, said second parameters
characterizing:
the currently displayed slice view, with the one or more
second parameters comprising information about the size of the
structure of interest (SOI) in the currently displayed slice view,
and
2
Appeal2014-009235
Application 12/134,615
said first parameters are determined so that an optimized
view on the displayed volume rendering of the structure of
interest (SOI) is achieved without additional user input apart
from the user-selection of the position.
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Pan et al.
Miga et al.
Poston et al.
US 6,464,641 Bl
US 2005/0101855 Al
US 2007/0146325 Al
Oct. 15, 2002
May 12, 2005
June 28, 2007
Ming-Yuen Chan et al., Proceedings of the Second Int'! Conference
on Advances in Visual Computing- Volume Part I (ISVC '06), pp.
528-37 (2006) ("Chan").
Konrad Miihler et al., Viewpoint Selection for Intervention
Planning, Proceedings of the 9th Joint Eurographics I IEEE VGTC
conference on Visualization, pp. 267-74 (2007) ("Miihler").
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 22, 24, 25, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Chan. (Ans. 3.)
Claims 4---6 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Chan and Poston. (Ans. 7.)
Claims 10, 13-19, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Chan and Miihler. (Ans. 9.)
Claims 21and26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Chan and Pan. (Ans. 16.)
Claims 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Chan and Miga. (Ans. 20.)
3
Appeal2014-009235
Application 12/134,615
Claim 1
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Chan and Miga fails to teach or
suggest the following limitations of claim 1: the enabling-user-selection
element, the currently-displayed-slice-view element, and the first
parameters/optimized-view element. 1 (App. Br. 6.) Appellants present three
reasons why Chan, in particular, does not teach or suggest these elements.
First, Appellants argue Chan does not teach or suggest obtaining a
size of anything in a currently displayed two-dimensional slice view. (App.
Br. 7 .) (The currently-displayed-slice-view element recites "second
parameters compris[ e] information about the size of the structure of interest
(SOI) in the currently displayed slice view.") The Examiner responds that
Chan discloses selecting projected voxels in a MIP (maximum intensity
projection) and labeling those voxels in slices of the volume. (Ans. 22
(citing Chan, p. 530).) The Examiner finds that Chan determines
information about the size of the subject of interest in order to permit such
labeling. (Id.) Appellants do not challenge that finding on reply. (Reply Br.
2.) In light of this record, we are not persuaded that Chan fails to teach or
suggest obtaining a size in a currently displayed two-dimensional slice view.
Second, Appellants argue that Chan's disclosure of a bounding region
does not involve using the size of an object of interest to assist in
determining parameters that characterize a slice view of a displayed volume
or assist in determining the optimal view ofvoxels of interest. (App. Br. 7-
8.) (The first parameters/optimized-view element recites "first parameters
1 These elements appear in italics in this order in the reprint of claim 1
above.
4
Appeal2014-009235
Application 12/134,615
are determined so that an optimized view on the displayed volume rendering
of the structure of interest (SOI) is achieved .... ) The Examiner responds
that Chan determines the size of a region of interest when it generates a
bounding region for the voxels of interest. (Ans. 22-23.) Appellants do not
challenge this finding in reply. (Reply 2-3.) (The bounding region is used
to produce an optimal view. (Ans. 4--5; Chan, p. 530.)) Accordingly, we are
not persuaded that Chan fails to determine the size of an object of interest to
assist in determining parameters that characterize a slice view of a displayed
volume.
Third, Appellants argue Chan requires a large amount of input from
the user regarding visibility and occlusion of each individual voxel in
addition to the user selected position of a subject of interest. (App. Br. 8.)
(The first parameters/optimized view element recites: "optimized view ... is
achieved without additional user input apart from the user-selection of the
position.") The Examiner responds that Chan's method of searching by
spanning all possible directions for an optimized view does not involve such
additional data. (Ans. 23; Chan, pp. 531-32.) Appellants do not challenge
this finding in reply. (Reply 2-3.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded that,
when spanning all possible directions, Chan requires additional user input
apart from the user-selection of position of a subject of interest to achieve an
optimal view.
On reply, Appellants also argue Chan fails to anticipate claim 1
because the slice view in Chan is labeled after the voxels of interest are
determined and therefore Chan does not satisfy the limitation of "displaying
a volume rendering of the structure of interest (SOI) based on one or more
first parameters, said first parameters characterizing the slice view of the
5
Appeal2014-009235
Application 12/134,615
displayed volume rendering of the structure of interest (SOI)." (Reply Br.
2.) We will not consider this argument because Appellants have presented
no good cause for waiting until their reply to raise it, and no such good cause
is apparent. (See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013); App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br.
2.) The Final Action identifies the disclosures in Chan that the Examiner
relies upon for labeling voxels in a slice and for displaying a volume
rendering. (Final Act. 8-10.) Therefore, this argument should have been
presented in the Appeal Brief, so the Examiner could respond.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 34
Claim 34 recites elements that correspond to the enabling-user-
selection element and the first parameters/optimized-view element of claim
1. For these corresponding elements, Appellants rely on the same arguments
as for claim 1. (App. Br. 8-11.) As set forth above, we are not persuaded by
those arguments.
Claim 34 also recites an element directed to automatically
determining first parameters based on second parameters that include the
orientation of the patient ("patient orientation" element2). The Examiner
relies the combination of Chan and Miga for this element, citing Miga' s
disclosure of using patient orientation for rendering images. (Ans. 24.)
Appellants argue that Chan and Miga fail to teach or suggest the patient-
2 This element reads: "wherein said first parameters are determined
automatically by considering the user-selected position and one or more
second parameters of the displayed volume rendering, said second
parameters characterizing the patient, with the one or more second
parameters comprising information about an orientation of the patient when
the medical data set of the volume rendering of the patient was acquired."
6
Appeal2014-009235
Application 12/134,615
orientation element because Miga' s uses patient orientation for reasons that
have nothing to do with its MRI data or the claimed parameters. (App. Br.
10; Reply Br. 3.) In particular, Appellants argue that in Miga there is no
connection between the disclosed preoperative orientation of the patient and
the patient's orientation when the preoperative MRI was acquired. (Reply
Br. 3.) We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner correctly
finds, Miga produces volume-rendered preoperative images deformed by
preoperative patient orientation using preoperative MRI data. (Ans. 23-24.)
We agree with the Examiner that the cited disclosure teaches or at least
suggests utilizing the patient's orientation when the preoperative MRI data
was acquired. In fact, it is not readily apparent why one skilled in the art
would use any other preoperative orientation for the rendering (e.g., in
rendering preoperative MRI data, the orientation when the MRI was taken
would appear the most relevant preoperative orientation.) Consequently,
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Chan and Miga teaches or suggests the patient orientation
element of claim 34.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 34.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-22, and 24-33
Appellants present the same arguments for claims 2---6, 8-10, 12-22,
and 24--33 as for claim 1. (App. Br. 11.) Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of these claims.
Claim 35
Appellants present the same arguments for claim 35 as for claim 34.
(App. Br. 11.) Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 35.
7
Appeal2014-009235
Application 12/134,615
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1---6, 8-10, 12-22, and 24--35.
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