Ex Parte Sevenster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2018

13997277 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/997,277 06/24/2013 Merlijn Sevenster
24737 7590 06/20/2018
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.
2010P01313WOUS 2526
EXAMINER
SPOONER, LAMONT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2018 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 MERLIJN SEVENSTER and YUECHEN QIAN
Appeal2017-010693
Application 13/997,277 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ADAM J. PYONIN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 16-23. 2 Wehavejurisdictionover
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N. V. as the real party
in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 6, 13, and 15 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010693
Application 13/997,277
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to
"automatically extracting a location of an abnormality with respect to an
anatomical structure from a report" and "generation of pictorial reporting
diagrams of lesions in anatomical structures." Abstract, Spec. 1:3--4. 3
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with limitations at issue
emphasized:
1. A system for automatically extracting a location of an
abnormality with respect to an anatomical structure within a
body comprising a plurality of anatomical structures from a
report, the system comprising:
a memory,
a display, and
a controller that controls:
a tokenizer that tokenizes the report or a part of the report,
thereby producing a plurality of tokens that are stored in the
memory;
an analyzer that identifies a semantic structure
comprising identified tokens of the plurality of tokens, describing
the location of the abnormality with respect to the anatomical
structure; and
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
June 24, 2013 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed
December 6, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief filed March 30, 2017 ("Appeal
Br."); (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), mailed June 16, 2017; and (5)
the Reply Brief filed August 14, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-010693
Application 13/997,277
a mapper that indicates the location of the abnormality
with respect to the anatomical structure on the display via a
diagram representing the anatomical structure by annotating the
diagram based on the identified semantic structure by adding a
graphic visualization of the location of the abnormality on the
diagram representing the anatomical structure.
Appeal Br. 15.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnan et al., (U.S. 2009/0310836 Al;
Dec. 17, 2009) ("Krishnan"), Esham et al., (U.S. 2007/0064987 Al; Mar.
22, 2007) ("Esham"), and Rathjen et al., (U.S. 2006/0248349 Al; Nov. 2,
2006) ("Rathjen"). Final Act. 8-14.
Claims 3-5, 12, 19-21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnan, Esham, Rathjen, and Cams et
al., (U.S. 7,822,598 B2; patented Oct. 26, 2010) ("Cams"). Final Act. 14--
17.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Krishnan, Esham, Rathjen, and Appellants' admitted prior
art. Final Act. 17-18.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R.
§§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), 4I.39(a)(l).
3
Appeal2017-010693
Application 13/997,277
ISSUE
Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Krishnan,
Esham, and Rathjen teaches or suggests
an analyzer that identifies a semantic structure compnsmg
identified tokens of the plurality of tokens, describing the
location of the abnormality with respect to the anatomical
structure; and
a mapper that indicates the location of the abnormality with
respect to the anatomical structure on the display via a diagram
representing the anatomical structure by annotating the diagram
based on the identified semantic structure by adding a graphic
visualization of the location of the abnormality on the diagram
representing the anatomical structure,
as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Krishnan teaches "an analyzer that identifies a
semantic structure comprising identified tokens of the plurality of tokens,
describing the location of the abnormality with respect to the anatomical
structure," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 9 (citing Krishnan ,r,r 30, 37-39).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings. Appellants argue
"[n]owhere in the cited text does Krishnan address the location of the
abnormality with respect to the anatomic structure. Krishnan merely
determines whether or not the anatomic structure contains the abnormality."
Appeal Br. 6 ( citing Krishnan Fig. 1, S 15) (bolding removed).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Krishnan relates to automatic
detection of regions of interest in anatomical images using semantic patient
records. See Krishnan, Abstract.
4
Appeal2017-010693
Application 13/997,277
Krishnan states:
As each disease may be associated with a particular organ or
other anatomical structure, exemplary embodiments of the
present invention may be able to automatically segment a
plurality of organs and/or anatomical structures from the medical
image data to identify a particular organ or structure that is
associated with the particular disease the CAD system is being
trained to detect.
Krishnan ,r 36. In Krishnan, words (tokens) are "automatically parsed and
grouped" in the patient records (radiology reports) to determine where the
disease is located, e.g., in the lungs, which are then segmented. See
Krishnan ,r,r 30, 35, 42. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Krishnan teaches "describing the location of the abnormality with respect to
the anatomical structure" as in claim 1, because Krishnan "identif[ies] a
particular organ or structure [the location] that is associated with the
particular disease" with respect to an anatomical structure. Ans. 13-14
( citing Krishnan ,r 3 6) ( emphasis removed).
The Examiner further finds Esham teaches or suggests "a mapper," as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 9-11 (citing Esham ,r,r 25, 29 and Figs. 3A,
3B, 3D); Ans. 18-19. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Esham's "arrows
pointing to abnormalities" in a displayed medical image of a heart to teach
or suggest "a mapper that indicates the location of the abnormality with
respect to the anatomical structure on the display via a diagram representing
the anatomical structure by annotating the diagram," as in claim 1. Ans. 18
(citing Esham ,r 29 and Figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 3D).
Appellants "concur that [Esham's] FIGs. 3A-3D contain such arrows"
but present several arguments distinguishing Esham. Appeal Br. 10. First,
Appellants argue "Esham does not disclose that the location of these arrows
5
Appeal2017-010693
Application 13/997,277
were identified by Esham's system" because "Esham's FIGs 3A-3G are
commonly used diagrams in the field of radiology" and "[p]resumably, the
arrows were added by the authors [of the diagrams], and not by a mapping
system." Appeal Br. 10, 11.
We find this argument unpersuasive. Esham discloses "FIG. 3
illustrates anatomical image views that may be associated with medical
imaging device positional data in the mapping data of repository 27" of
Esham's medical imaging report generation system 20. Esham ,r 23; see
Esham ,r 20, Fig. 1. Accordingly, Appellants' presumption "that the arrows
were added by the authors" does not persuasively overcome the Examiner's
finding that Esham's mapping system displays the arrow. See Final Act. 9-
11; Ans. 18-19; see also Esham ,r,r 7, 29.
Next, Appellants argue that "Esham does not disclose that the location
of these arrows ... correspond to a particular patient's medical record, and,
more specifically, Esham does not disclose that these figures are displayed
to the user." Appeal Br. 10.
We find these arguments unpersuasive because neither argument is
based on limitations found in claim 1. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[The] proffered facts ... are not commensurate with
the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.").
The Examiner finds Rathjen teaches or suggests "a mapper ... adding
a graphical visualization of the location of the abnormality on the diagram
representing the anatomical structure," as in claim 1. Final Act. 11. Rathjen
relates to a system that maps and displays genetic marker locations on a
chromosome using 3D coordinate data. See Rathjen ,r,r 30, 31.
6
Appeal2017-010693
Application 13/997,277
Appellants argue Rathjen does not teach or suggest "a mapper," as
claimed because "Rathjen's system does not detect abnormalities within an
anatomical structure; Rathjen merely identifies anatomical structures that
may develop abnormalities because of the presence of the particular gene
marker." Appeal Br. 12.
We are unpersuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Rathjen teaches "'[i]n a graphical representation of the human body, those
areas affected by the specified disease are highlighted."' Ans. 21 ( citing
Rathjen i-f73) (emphasis removed). That is, we agree that Rathjen's
discussion of highlighting a genetic mutation on a displayed human
chromosome teaches or suggests "adding a graphic visualization of the
location of the abnormality." See Rathjen i-f73 (discussing Fig. 4).
Furthermore, although we do not rely on the finding here, we find
Esham would have been sufficient to teach "adding a graphical visualization
of the location of the abnormality on the diagram" because Esham discloses
"identify[ing] anatomical views that are associated with abnormalities of
identified underlying anatomy" and illustrates anatomical views that include
graphical visualizations in the form of an arrow. Esham ,r 36; see Esham
,I 29, Fig. 3.
For the reasons discussed, Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 as well as the rejection of
independent claims 10, and 16, which are argued for similar reasons as
independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 12,
14, and 17-23 are not argued separately and so the rejections of these claims
7
Appeal2017-010693
Application 13/997,277
are sustained for the reasons given for independent claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 6, 13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, 14,
and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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