Ex Parte Proksa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 201613266556 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/266,556 10/27/2011 Roland Proksa 24737 7590 09/14/2016 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. 2009P00915WOUS 1091 EXAMINER YANG, WEI WEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2667 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2016 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 ROLAND PROKSA and MICHAEL GRASS Appeal2015-004651 Application 13/266,556 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-004651 Application 13/266,556 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Exemplary Claims Exemplary claim 1 under appeal read as follows: 1. A method, comprising: determining at least two energy-dependent components based on projection data from at least two non-agent based spectral scans, wherein a first of the at least two spectral scans is performed at a first emission voltage and a second of the at least two spectral scans is performed at a second emission voltage, wherein the first and second emission voltages are different; and decomposing, with a decomposer, agent-based time series projection data for an object or a subject into at least an agent-based component based on the at least two energy- dependent components. Examiner's Rejections Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Walter '621 (US 2009/0052621 Al, Feb. 26, 2009). Final Act. 5-9. 1 1 As to this rejection, the rejection of independent claim 1 is determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 18-20 is not discussed further herein. 2 Appeal2015-004651 Application 13/266,556 Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walter '621 in view of Walter '443 (US 200710189443 Al, Aug. 16, 2007). Final Act. 10-13.2 Appellants' Contention3 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because claim 1 requires decomposing agent-based time series projection data into an agent-based component based on two energy-dependent components, which are determined based on projection data from two non-agent based spectral scans. In other words, the agent-based component is determined based on agent-based and non-agent-based projection data. Appellant's brief explains that Walter does not disclose this. The Examiner's Answer seems to ignore that the agent-based component is decomposed based on agent-based projection data and the energy-dependent components determined based on non-agent based spectral scans. Reply Rr. 2 (Appellants' emphasis omitted, Panel emphasis added). Appellants also contend: Walter discloses decomposing agent-based projection data into an agent-based component only based on agent based projection data from an agent-based scan. As best as Appellant understands, the Office has dissected the subject claim limitation into discrete elements and has evaluated them in isolation. One discrete element is 2 As to this rejection, our decision as to the rejection of independent claim 1 is determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejections of claims 10 and 12-14 are not discussed further herein. 3 This contention is determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein. 3 Appeal2015-004651 Application 13/266,556 determining the at least two energy-dependent components based on projection data from at least two non-agent based spectral scans. In Walter, two energy-dependent components are decomposed from projection data from a non-agent based scan. The other discrete element is decomposing agent-based time series projection data into at least an agent-based component based on energy-dependent components. In Walter, a contrast agent component (and two materials such as bone and soft tissue) is decomposed only from agent-based projection data from an agent based scan, and not from projection data from a non-agent based scan. Walter does not disclose a non-dissected claim 1. That is, claim 1 requires decomposing agent-based time series projection data into at least an agent-based component based on the least two energy-dependent components, which are determined based on projection data from non-agent based spectral scans, and agent based projection data. In other words, the decomposition to generate the agent-based component requires energy-dependent components determined from non- agent based scans. In stark contrast, Walter discloses decomposing agent-based projection data only from an agent based scan, and is silent about and does not enable decomposing agent-based data based on projection data from non-agent based scans. Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because Walter '621 fails to disclose the argued limitation? ANALYSIS We agree with the Appellants' above recited contention. The Examiner finds: 4 Appeal2015-004651 Application 13/266,556 Walter discloses determining at least two energy-dependent components based on projection data from at least two non- agent based spectral scans (see Walter: e.g. --decomposition technique may decompose the photoelectric and Compton components for an imaged material. So, images corresponding to the photoelectric or Compton components of the imaged material may be generated {wherein, photoelectric or Compton components are at least two energy-dependent components} in addition to or instead of the density based images-, at [0058], and, -two or more sets of projection data are obtained for the imaged object at different tube voltages {"at different tube voltages" is considered as two non-agent based spectral scans, and above energy-dependent components of the photoelectric or Compton components are respectively two energy-dependent components, which are non-agent based}-, at [0035]). Ans. 10-11 (emphasis omitted). We have reviewed Walter '621 at paragraphs 35 and 58. We conclude that the Examiner's finding is not supported by Walter '621 for the reasons set forth by Appellants at Reply Br. 2---6. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 18-20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10 and 12-14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 5 Appeal2015-004651 Application 13/266,556 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation