Ex Parte Meinel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2018

13813232 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/813,232 01/30/2013 Lina Meinel 2010P00888WOUS 6719
24737 7590 01/23/2018
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue SCHWARTZ, RAPHAEL M
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2018 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):
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
marianne. fox @ philips, com
katelyn.mulroy @philips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LINA MEINEL
Appeal 2017-004486
Application 13/813,232
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and LYNNE E.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims
1—5, 7—13, and 15—26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
January 27, 2017) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 11, 2016), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 2, 2016) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed December 22, 2015).
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 in the Advisory dated March 1, 2016. The Examiner finds that claims 6 and
14 are objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable
if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim
and any intervening claims. Final Act. 16.
Appeal 2017-004486
Application 13/813,232
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to medical imaging, specifically, a
segmentation method of an image of internal tissue. Spec. 1.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1,9, 17, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below.
1. A segmentation method, comprising:
defining a search region by selecting two locations in an image
of a structure to be segmented;
sampling the search region to provide an unwrapped image;
edge filtering the unwrapped image to determine likely
boundary pixels in the image;
constructing a directed graph for the unwrapped image by
determining nodes of the graph by computing a lowest cost
between boundary pixels;
generating a potential segmentation for user approval using live
images; and
in accordance with a trace by the user, automatically connecting
nodes for a final segmentation of the image of the structure to
be segmented.
Independent claims 9, 17, and 22 recite similar limitations as claim 1,
and Appellant argues they are allowable for the same reasons as argued for
claim 1. App. Br. 18—21; Reply Br. 11.
2
Appeal 2017-004486
Application 13/813,232
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1—4, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22—24, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cox (US Patent No. 6,078,688,
issued Jun. 20, 2000), Unal (US Publication No. 2008/0260221 Al, published Oct.
23, 2008), and Spagnolini, “2D phase unwrapping and phase aliasing,” 58
Geophysics (No. 9) 1324—1334 (September 1993). Final Act. 6—12.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cox, Unal, Spagnolini, and Dijkstra, “A Note on Two Problems
in Connexion with Graphs,” Numerische Mathematik, 269—271 (1959). Final
Act. 13-14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Cox, Unal, Spagnolini, and Fabel, “Semi-automated volumetric
analysis of lymph node metastases in patients with malignant melanoma stage
IIIIVA feasibility study,” 18 Eur. Radiol. (2008), 1114-1122 (DOI 10.1007).
Final Act. 14—15.
The Examiner has rejected claim 25 under as being unpatentable over Cox,
Unal, Spagnolini, Fabel, and Steimkamp, “Cervical lymphadenopathy: ratio of
long- to short-axis diameter as a predictor of malignancy,” 68 British Journal of
Radiology (Iss. 807). Final Act. 15—16.
ISSUES
Appellant argues, on pages 10—25 of the Appeal Brief and pages 6—15 of the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,9, 17, and 22 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following issues:
3
Appeal 2017-004486
Application 13/813,232
1) Did the Examiner err in finding Cox teaches constructing a directed
graph by determining nodes of the graph by computing a lowest cost
between boundary pixels?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding Unal teaches in accordance with a trace
by the user, automatically connecting nodes for a final segmentation of
the image of the structure to be segmented?
3) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cox and Spagnolini
teaches sampling the search region to provide an unwrapped image?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply
Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 22 or the dependent
claims.
Issue 1
The Examiner finds Cox teaches constructing a directed graph by
determining nodes of the graph by computing a lowest cost between boundary
pixels, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7. Specifically, the Examiner finds Cox
teaches constructing an optimal contour with a directed path of a segmented region
on a planar graph using an algorithm to minimize cost associated with the
boundary of the segmented region. Final Act. 7, citing to Cox col. 4,11. 36-44; see
also Cox col. 3,11. 34—36. The Examiner further finds the edges of the directed
path are circularly ordered in a clockwise fashion as a direct result of the
algorithm, and thus meets the definition of a directed graph. Ans. 13. As such, the
Examiner finds that Cox’s planar graph is also a directed graph. Ans. 14—15.
4
Appeal 2017-004486
Application 13/813,232
Appellant argues that Cox is a planar graph using an algorithm that
determines a directed path that “is not a directed graph which includes vertices
connected by edges, wherein the edges have a direction associated with them.”
App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 7 (arguing there is no teaching in Cox that the
directed path determined by the algorithm can have edges with associated
directions). Appellant further argues Cox computes the lowest cost boundary
pixels “to determine optimal contours, not to construct a directed graph.” App. Br.
14, citing Cox col. 4,1. 31 to col. 5,1. 18; Fig. 1.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. First, we note Appellant agrees
that Cox’s algorithm computes the lowest cost boundary to determine directed
paths/optimal contours. See App. Br. 14. Second, the Examiner provided a
comprehensive response to Appellant’s argument that Cox’s directed path is not a
directed graph, i.e., finding that the edges of the directed path are circularly
ordered in a clockwise fashion and, as such, the edges have associated directions
and form a directed graph. See Ans. 13; see also Cox Appendix A. Appellant does
not address the substance of the Examiner’s finding as to the directed path, and
instead merely notes that the Cox graph is planar. App. Br. 12—15; Reply Br. 6—8.
As such, Appellant’s argument does not address why Cox’s planar graph with a
directed path fails to constitute a directed graph. Accordingly, we are not apprised
of error with respect to the Examiner’s finding that Cox teaches constructing a
directed graph by determining nodes of the graph by computing a lowest cost
between boundary pixels.
Issue 2
The Examiner finds Unal teaches using various editing tools to refine the
boundary of the segmentation, where the user corrects the boundary by selecting
points along the boundary (i.e., in accordance with a trace by the user). Final Act.
5
Appeal 2017-004486
Application 13/813,232
7—8, citing to Unal Tflf 100-108; Ans. 15—17. The selected points, or seeds, are
automatically connected by the system for a final segmentation of the image. The
Examiner construes the language of claim 1 “in accordance with a trace by the
user, automatically connecting nodes for a final segmentation of the image of the
structure to be segmented” to read on Unal’s teachings. Ans. 15—16.
Appellant argues that trace is a term of art where the clicking of points
would not be understood as a trace. App. Br. 16 (“The simple clicking of two
control points is not a trace as would be understood by a person with ordinary skill
in the art.”). Reply Br. 16. Appellant argues that while the user may use Unal’s
editing tool to select seeds along the boundary, it is the system that then analyzes
the seeds and finds the shortest path between them, not the user. App. Br. 16;
Reply Br. 8—10. Therefore, Appellant argues the seeds are connected in
accordance with a trace by the system and not by the user. Id.
The Examiner interprets trace as the user drawing/selecting seed points
along the boundary. Ans. 16. We concur. Claim 1 does not recite a limitation
which excludes from the scope of a trace a user defining the area by identifying
points of the boundary nor do we find that Appellant’s specification defines a trace
in such a manner. Thus, the Examiner’s broad claim interpretation is reasonable
and Appellant’s narrow definition of trace is not in the claim or supported by the
Specification. Because Appellant’s argument is based on an narrow claim
interpretation rather than the broadest reasonable interpretation found by the
Examiner, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error in finding Unal
teaches “a trace by the user.” Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding
Unal teaches a trace by the user.
6
Appeal 2017-004486
Application 13/813,232
Issue 3
The Examiner finds Cox teaches defining a search region and Spagnolini
teaches sampling to provide phase unwrapping for signal processing; the Examiner
concludes the combination of Cox and Spagnolini teaches sampling a search region
to provide an unwrapped image, as required by claim 1. Final Act. 8—9, citing to
Spagnolini || 1—2; Ans. 17—18, citing to Spagnolini || 1325, 1331.
Appellant argues Spagnolini teaches unwrapping complex signals, not
unwrapping images or unwrapping at a search region of an image. App. Br. 17;
Reply Br. 13—14.
Appellant’s arguments do not address the combination as proposed by the
Examiner, and thus are not persuasive. Appellant argues Spagnolini does not teach
‘“sampling the search region to provide an unwrapped image.’” Reply Br. 10.
However, the Examiner relies on Cox to teach defining the search region by
selecting two locations in an image, and relies on Spagnolini to teach unwrapping
images. See Final Act. 6, 9. The Examiner further correctly points out Spagnolini
is directed to image processing/unwrapping of images, and is not limited to
unwrapping complex signals as argued by Appellant. App. Br. 17. Appellant
addresses Spagnolini alone, and does not identify error in the combination of the
references as proposed by the Examiner. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981) (One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references).
Accordingly, we are not apprised of error with respect to the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combination of Cox and Spagnolini teaches unwrapping an
image in a search region.
Claims 2—\ and 7 depend upon claim 1, claims 10—12 and 15 depend upon
claim 9, and claims 18 and 20 depend upon claim 17, none of which are argued
7
Appeal 2017-004486
Application 13/813,232
separately. App. Br. 18—21; Reply Br. 11. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 7, 9—12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22—24, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Cox, Unal, and Spagnolini.
Regarding claims 5, 8, 13, 16, 19, 21, and 25, Appellant presents arguments
that the additional references (Dijkstra, Fabel, and Steimkamp) do not remedy
deficiencies of Cox, Unal, or Spagnolini. As we find no deficiencies in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as unpatentable over Cox,
Unal, and Spagnolini for the reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Cox, Unal, Spagnolini, and Dijkstra; claims 8, 16, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Cox, Unal, Spagnolini, and Fabel; and
claim 25 under as being unpatentable over Cox, Unal, Spagnolini, Fabel, and
Steimkamp.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 7—13, and 15—26 are 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