Ex Parte Skyba et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 11, 2012

10984320 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DANNY SKYBA, DAMIEN DOLLMIER, and ROHIT GARG
__________

Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, STEPHEN WALSH, and
JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to
methods and an imaging system for delineating a boundary of a myocardium
in a medical diagnostic image. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
being directed to patent ineligible subject matter, for obviousness-type
double patenting, and as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm the obviousness rejection.

Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to methods and a system involving the manual
marking of three points on a diagnostic image of a myocardium of a heart,
and automatically fitting a predetermined border shape by distorting the
shape to fit the three points as a pointer moves or marks a point on the
image. Claims 1-17 are on appeal, with claims 1, 9 and 14 being
independent.
Claims 1 and 14 are representative. Claim 1 reads (emphasis added):
1. A method of delineating the boundary of the myocardium in a
medical diagnostic image of the heart comprising:
acquiring an image of the heart containing myocardial tissue
which is to be delineated;
manually marking at least two points of the mitral valve plane
which are on the boundary which is to be delineated;
manually marking a third point on the boundary by moving a
pointer to the third point which is in the vicinity of the apex of the
heart; and
automatically fitting a predetermined border shape
predetermined for the anatomical shape of the myocardial boundary
which is to be delineated to the three points of the boundary by
distorting the predetermined shape to fit the first two points and the
pointer as the pointer is moving to the third point, whereby the border
shape, when fitted to the three points, indicates a boundary of the
myocardial tissue in the image.
Claim 14 reads (emphasis added):
14. An ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system for delineating an
anatomical boundary in an image of the heart comprising:
a scanhead having an array transducer for scanning a region of
interest;
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

3
a beamformer coupled to the array transducer which acts to
beamform echo signals received from the region of interest;
an image processor coupled to the beamformer which acts to
form an image of the region of interest;
a user operated pointing device which enables a user to
manipulate a cursor in the image to identify at least three landmark
points on an anatomical boundary in the heart image, the three points
comprising two on the mitral valve plane and one at the apex of the
heart;
a source of predetermined border shapes predetermined for
anatomy of the heart boundary which is to be delineated; and
an assisted border detector, coupled to the source of border
shapes and responsive to the image processor and the pointing device
which acts to fit one of the border shapes to one or more landmark
points previously identified by the user and the cursor as the user
operated pointing device manipulates the cursor.
Independent claim 9 is similar to claim 1, but recites in the last clause
“automatically fitting … by stretching the predetermined shape between two
of the points and a pointing device as the three points are marked, whereby
the fitted border shape indicates a boundary of the myocardium.”
The claims stand rejected as follows:
• Claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a patent
ineligible process.
• Claims 1-13 and 14-17 for non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-22 and 23-40 of Skyba et al. (U.S. Pat. No.
7,347,821 B2, issued Mar. 25, 2008).
• Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chenal et al.
(U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0072671 A1, published Jun. 13, 2002).
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

4
I.
Issue
Do process claims 1-13 recite patent eligible subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101?
Principles of Law
Supreme Court precedents “provide three specific exceptions to
§ 101‟s broad patent-eligibility principles: „laws of nature, physical
phenomena, and abstract ideas.‟” Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3225
(2010) (quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980)). In
Bilski, the Court reasoned that the claims at issue there merely explained the
basic concept of hedging, which was “an unpatentable abstract idea, just like
the algorithms at issue in Benson and Flook.” Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3231. In
holding that the “machine-or-transformation” test is not the exclusive test for
a process‟s patent-eligibility, the Supreme Court left open the door for “the
Federal Circuit‟s development of other limiting criteria that further the
purposes of the Patent Act and are not inconsistent with its text.” Id. The
Federal Circuit has since stated that “inventions with specific applications or
improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so
abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the
Patent Act.” Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859,
869 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In CyberSource, the court noted that the method recited in Research
Corp. “required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the
pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

5
the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital
image).” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2011). The method in that case “could not, as a practical matter,
be performed entirely in a human‟s mind.” Id. By contrast, in CyberSource,
“one could mentally perform the fraud detection method” recited in the
claims and therefore the claims in that case attempted to “capture
unpatentable mental processes (i.e., abstract ideas).” Id. at 1376-77.
Analysis
Of the three exceptions to § 101‟s broad patent-eligibility principles,
the issue here is whether the process claims recite an abstract idea. In this
context, the Examiner applies the machine-or-transformation test under
Bilski, and asserts that the methods “do not transform underlying subject
matter (such as an article or materials) to a different state or thing, nor are
they tied to another statutory class (such as a particular apparatus).” (Ans. 3-
4, 7.)
We note that the Supreme Court has clarified in Bilski that while the
machine-or-transformation test “is not the sole test for deciding whether an
invention is a patent-eligible „process‟ under § 101,” it remains a “useful and
important clue or investigative tool.” Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3221; see also
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1296
(2012). Thus, the Examiner appropriately assesses patent eligibility under
the machine-or-transformation test. We disagree with the Examiner,
however, that the process claims at issue are not transformative.
The claims are directed to “delineating the boundary of the
myocardium in a medical diagnostic image” in a method that comprises
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

6
“manually marking” at least three points on the image itself. (Claims 1 and
9.) Moreover, a person practicing the claimed processes ends up with a
diagnostic image that is altered or transformed. Specifically, the process
transforms a non-delineated diagnostic image to one that is delineated, i.e.,
includes point marks and a shape border that shows the boundary of a
myocardium. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the result of the recited
methods “is the transformation of a plain medical diagnostic image into one
with certain anatomy visually depicted for easy identification by the
clinician.” (App. Br. 12.)
In addition, the claims do not correspond to a situation, such as in
CyberSource, where “one could mentally perform” the recited methods. 654
F.3d at 1376. The “manually marking” claim language dictates some kind
of physical action. Moreover, while “automatically fitting” a border shape
may involve a computer, the fitting itself occurs upon “distorting” or
“stretching” a shape as at least one point on the image is marked or moved
via physical action by a human. Thus, the claims here are akin to those in
Research Corp. (a case also relating to computer imaging), where the
method “could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human‟s
mind.” Id. Thus, the claims here do not merely recite an abstract idea.
Lastly, we note that the holding in the recent Prometheus case is
inapplicable here. The pending claims do not “simply tell doctors to gather
data from which they may draw an inference in light of the correlations” as
determined by the Court to be the case in Prometheus. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at
1298 (discussing the laws of nature exception to § 101). Rather, one
practicing the recited methods does far more than merely gather data and/or
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

7
“think about” gathered data. Likewise, even if we conclude the combination
of recited method steps here are obvious, we do not address a situation
where the claims are “simply appending conventional steps, specified at a
high level of generality” to an abstract idea. Id. at 1300. The pending
claims are directed to a specific process, requiring physical action by a
human, for altering a specific part of a medical diagnostic image.
Conclusion of Law
We conclude that process claims 1-13 recite patent eligible subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
II.
Issue
Has the Examiner established a prima facie case that the pending
claims define an obvious variation of the claims of Skyba?
Findings of Fact
1. Skyba includes two independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 23. Claim
23 is representative (emphasis added):
23. A method of defining a tissue border in a medical
ultrasound image, comprising: acquiring a 3-D ultrasound
volumetric image; identifying at least three key points or
landmarks within the 3-D volumetric image; locating and
identifying a center scanline in the ultrasound image relative the
three key points or landmarks; determining an array of
threshold values correlated to the center scan line as a function
of image depth; fitting a trace to a tissue border related to the
center scanline and the array of threshold values; and
displaying an ultrasonic image with a fitted trace displayed on
the tissue border.
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

8
2. Regarding “an array of threshold values” as recited in claims
presented in Skyba, the specification of Skyba discloses (emphasis added):
In a preferred embodiment, the present invention
overcomes the shortcomings of the conventional arts by
generating and utilizing an array of thresholds which are a
function of image depth. The array of thresholds is then used to
identify endocardial and epicardial borders more accurately
than known ABD or ACD methods. That is, once the threshold
array is acquired and stored, the orientation of the structure
(e.g., heart) with respect to the direction of a center scanline is
determined. The center scanline is defined by first
automatically (or manually) identifying several landmarks or
key points within the image, and using the landmarks to
generate center the scanline. Preferably, three (3) key points or
landmarks are used. Accurate thresholds are then calculated
from the array of thresholds for use at a given depth to combat
signal loss or attenuation at the depth when searching for
structural edges.
(Id. at col. 6, ll. 45-60.) Skyba likewise states that “a set of thresholding
values [] are defined and correlated as a function of image depth and/or
quality.” (Id. at col. 7, ll. 15-20.)
3. Claim 3 of Skyba recites that “the step of identifying includes that the
at least one key point or benchmark is input automatically.”
4. Claim 31 of Skyba, which ultimately depends on claim 23, recites
that:
a contour model of degree N be fit through all of the threshold-
determined points of a particular edge, calculating a mean
distance between a set of points defining the contour model and
actual threshold-determined points and eliminating outlier
points which further than a factor F times the mean distance.
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

9
Principles of Law
Double patenting exists if a claim of a second patent, or a claim under
examination, is obvious over, or anticipated by, a claim of a first patent. See
Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2008); see also Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437 (obviousness-type double
patenting rejection affirmed where generic claims were anticipated by
patented claims directed to a species within the genus).
In an obviousness-type double patenting analysis, when considering
whether a claim of a second patent defines merely an obvious variation of an
invention recited in a claim of a first patent, the specification of the first
patent may not be used as prior art. As noted in In re Vogel, however, [t]his
does not mean that the disclosure may not be used at all.” In re Vogel, 422
F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970). In some cases, the specification serves “as a
dictionary for terms appearing in the claims, and in such instances the
disclosure may be used in interpreting the coverage of the claim.” Id.
Analysis
In relation to the obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the
Examiner states that the claims of Skyba and pending claims 1-17 are
directed to a common method and/or system “with only an obvious variation
of defining second and third points or landmarks in the instant claims.”
(Ans. 4-5.) In addition, the Examiner asserts that “[t]he point of defining
second and third landmarks in the image aside, the instant claims are broader
and are therefore anticipated by the conflicting claims” because pending
claims “do not specify determining an array of threshold values.” (Id. at 5.)
The Examiner also contends that “detection is performed automatically with
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

10
key points or landmarks that are input automatically, as in conflicting claims
3 and 23,” and that “calculation of a mean distance between a set of points
defining the contour model and the actual points, as in conflicting claim 31
is an additional automated border fit with a predetermined shape (the
contour model).” (Id. at 7-8.)
As an initial matter, we clarify that the pending claims do not vary
from the Skyba claims by “defining second and third points or landmarks”
as initially stated by the Examiner. (Id. at 4-5.) Claims 5, 17, 23 and 36 of
Skyba, for example, recite the step of identifying at least three key points or
benchmarks. (See also Ans. 7 (discussing claim 5).)
That said, pending claims 1 and 9 recite “automatically fitting a
predetermined border shape” by either “distorting the predetermined shape
to fit the first two points and the pointer as the pointer is moving to the third
point” (claim 1) or by “stretching the predetermined shape between two of
the points and a pointing device as the three points are marked” (claim 9),
respectively. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how such
elements are recited or suggested in the claims presented in Skyba.
Skyba‟s claims recite “determining an array of threshold values
correlated to the center scanline as a function of image depth,” and fitting a
trace to a tissue border “related to the center scanline and the array of
threshold values.” (Skyba, claims 1 and 23; FF 1.) Such language, in light
of the claims as a whole and the specification in Skyba (FF 2), do not teach
or suggest distorting or stretching a shape as one or more of the points or
landmarks are moved or manually marked. Rather, Skyba‟s claims teach
fitting a trace to a border based on (1) key points, (2) a center scanline
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

11
related to the key points, and (3) an array of threshold values, which are
based on image depth and quality. Certain dependent claims in Skyba
disclose or elaborate on how the “step of fitting includes determining a
series of chord projections out from the scanline to the myocardium, which
chord projections are parallel and occur at regular intervals.” (Skyba, claims
7-9 and 27-35.) Again, however, such claims do not teach or suggest
distorting or stretching a border shape as key points or landmarks are moved
or manually marked.
Even assuming, as stated by the Examiner, that claims 3 and 23 in
Skyba teach or suggest that a computer automatically identifies/detects the
key points or landmarks (Ans. 7), and claim 31 teaches or suggests “an
additional antomated border fit” (id. at 8), such statements do not indicate
that Skyba‟s claims teach or suggest distorting or stretching a border shape
while key points or landmarks are manually moved or marked, as recited in
pending claims 1 and 9. Likewise, the Examiner has not established how
such statements indicate that Skyba‟s claims teach or suggest “an assisted
border detector… responsive to … the cursor [used to identify landmark
points] as the user operated pointing device manipulates the cursor,” as
recited in pending claim 14.
Conclusion of Law
We conclude that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
that the pending claims, particularly as relating to the last clauses recited in
independent claims 1, 9, and 14, define an obvious variation of Skyba‟s
claims.
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

12
III.
Issue
Does Chenal disclose or suggest an assisted or a semi-automated
process that distorts a border shape, as well as a border detector and a
pointing device, as recited in pending independent claim 1, 9 or 14?
Additional Findings of Fact
5. Chenal discloses a method for tracing a tissue border in an ultrasound
image, such as the endocardial border of the left ventricle in a heart.
(Chenal, abstract, [0001], [0027]).
6. The method involves locating “three key landmarks in the image, the
medial mitral annulus (MMA), the lateral mitral annulus (LMA), and the
endocardial apex.” (Id. at [0027].) Once the points or landmarks have been
located, small boxes are used to mark the location in the image. (Id. at
[0029].)
7. Thereafter, as taught in Chenal, “one of a number of predetermined
standard shapes for the LV is fitted to the three landmarks and the
endocardial wall,” as shown, for example, in Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c. (Id. at
[0031].)
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

13
8. Figures 4 and Figures 5a – 5c in Chenal show the following:

Figure 4 depicts an ultrasound image of a left ventricle of a heart, including
landmarks 26 (at the MMA), 36 (at the LMA), and 46 (at the endocardial
apex). Figures 5a – 5c depict example standard border shapes for the left
ventricle.
9. Once a standard border shape is chosen, it “is then fitted to the border
to be traced by „stretching‟ the shape, in this example, to the endocardial
wall.” (Id. at [0032].) As also taught in Chenal:
The baseline between points 26 and 36 is not fit to the shape but
is left as a straight line, as this is the nominal plane of the mitral
valve. When the shape has been fit to points along the heart
wall, the border tracing is smoothed and displayed over the end
systole image as shown in the image 78 on the right side of the
dual display of FIG. 8. … In this example the portion of line
48 between the apex and the mitral valve plane is also shown,
as adjusted by the stretching operation.
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

14
(Id.)
10. Chenal further elaborates, when discussing Figures 8 and 9 (emphasis
added):
The clinician can review the end diastole and systole images, as
well as all of the intervening images of the loop if desired, and
manually adjust the positions of the landmark boxes and
control point X’s if it is seen that the automated process placed
a border in an incorrect position. The clinician can slide a box
or X along the border to a new position, and can add more
control points or delete control points from the border. The
process by which the clinician relocates a box or X laterally is
known as rubberbanding. Suppose that the ABD processor had
initially located the control point and border at the position
shown by circle 82 and dashed line 84, which the clinician
observes is incorrect. The clinician can relocate the control
point laterally by dragging the X with a screen pointing device
to the new location as shown by 86. As the X is dragged, the
border moves or stretches along with the X, thereby defining a
new border as shown by the solid line border 88. In this
manner the clinician can manually correct and adjust the
borders drawn by the ABD processor. As the clinician laterally
relocates a control point X, the ABD processor responds by
automatically recalculating the positions of the adjoining border
and adjacent control points if necessary so that the border
remains smoothly continuous.
(Id. at [0035]; see also [0004] (stating that the “user may automatically
adjust the automatically drawn borders by a rubber-banding technique”).)
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

15
11. Figure 9 in Chenal shows the following:

Figure 9 illustrates the rubber-banding technique for adjusting an
automatically drawn border. (Id. at [0014].)
12. Chenal also describes an ultrasound system comprising a “scanhead
410” that includes a “1D or 2D array transducer 412,” “a beamformer 420”
that receives echo signals from the transducer, “an image processor 440
which forms 2D or 3D grayscale or Doppler images,” “an ABD processor
which operates on the 2D or 3D images as described above to define the
anatomical borders and boundaries in the images,” where “[t]he defined
borders are overlaid on the images which are coupled to the video processor
470 for display.” (Id. at [0058].)
Principles of Law
The Examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on
any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If the Examiner meets that
initial burden, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shifts to the applicant. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

16
After the applicant submits such evidence or argument, the PTO then
determines patentability “on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of
evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445.
Analysis
Appellants argue that “Chenal et al. describe a fully automated border
detection (ABD) process and apparatus (ABD processor 490), not an
assisted or semi-automated approach as in the present application.” (App.
Br. 14.) According to Appellants, “landmarks are automatically located by
the ABD processor [in Chenal], not manually marked by a user,” as recited
in pending process claims 1 and 9. (Id.) Appellants also contend there is no
step in Chenal “equivalent to distorting or stretching a predetermined border
shape to fit two marked points in an image and a pointer as the pointer
moves to a third point.” (Id.)
Regarding the imaging system recited in pending claim 14, Appellants
assert that Chenal does not disclose or suggest a “user operated pointing
device” as recited “because the system of Chenal et al. locates image
landmarks automatically by image processing.” (Id.) Appellants also argue
that Chenal does not disclose or suggest a “border detector which fits a
border shape to one or more previously identified landmark points and a
cursor as a user manipulates the cursor.” (Id.)
In response to the Examiner‟s Answer, Appellants further argue that
paragraph [0003] in Chenal only refers to prior art methods for tracing
borders in medical images, but “does not describe the invention of Chenal,”
which is “entirely different” from the present invention. (Reply Br. 4-5.)
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

17
Appellants further assert that “interactive nature of the present invention is
not found anywhere in Chenal.” (Id. at 5.)
With regard to paragraph [0003] in Chenal, the Examiner states:
“While preference is made for a fully automated approach, included is an
assisted or semi-automated approach to border detection, as in [0003], in
which the user manually marks key reference points in the image,
necessitating a pointing device or cursor.” (Ans. 5 (emphasis added.) Thus,
while the Examiner cites to paragraph [0003] as an example disclosure
relating to a semi-automated approach, the Examiner‟s statement itself also
suggests this is not the only such disclosure in Chenal. Moreover, the
Examiner (Ans. 6) also refers to paragraph [0058], which describes “an
ABD processor which operates on the 2D or 3D images as described above
to define the anatomical borders and boundaries in the images,” i.e., refers to
descriptions in the Chenal prior to paragraph [0058]. (FF 12 (emphasis
added).) In addition, citing to paragraph [0004], the Examiner points out
that “a plurality of predefined shapes are fitted to the anatomical
landmarks.” (Ans. 8-9.) The Examiner also refers to paragraphs [0031] -
[0032] in Chenal. (Id. at 9.)
As described and directed in the portions of the reference cited by the
Examiner, Chenal elaborates how the disclosed methods and system may
operate in a semi-automated manner. For example, in paragraph [0032],
Chenal discusses “stretching” the shape, and how the baseline between
landmark points 26 and 36 is not fitted to the shape, but left as a straight line
corresponding to the mitral valve plane. (FF 9.) In this same paragraph,
when discussing Figure 8, “[w]hen the shape has been fit to points along the
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

18
heart wall, the border tracing is smoothed and displayed over the end systole
image as shown in the image 78 on the right side of the dual display of FIG.
8.” (Id.) Later on, in paragraph [0035], which also discusses Figures 8 and
9, Chenal expressly describes a semiautomatic feature, involving the manual
marking of points on the image. (FF 10.)
Specifically, in paragraph [0035], Chenal discusses how a clinician
can review end diastole and systole images, such as those shown in Figure 8,
and “manually adjust the positions of the landmark boxes and control point
X‟s if it is seen that the automated process placed a border in an incorrect
position,” as shown in Figure 9. (FF 10.) Chenal explains that the “process
by which the clinician relocates a box or X laterally is known as
rubberbanding.” (Id.) Chenal likewise references the rubber-banding
technique in paragraph [0004], which states that a “user may automatically
adjust the automatically drawn borders by a rubber-banding technique.”
(Id.; see also Chenal, abstract (stating that “[a]djustable control points are
located on the displayed border, enabling the automatically drawn border to
be manually adjusted by a rubberbanding technique.”).)
In relation to rubber-banding, Chenal teaches that a clinician can
“relocate” points by “dragging the X with a screen pointing device to the
new location as shown by 86” in Figure 9. (FF 10.) As also explained in
paragraph [0035], “[a]s the clinician laterally relocates a control point X, the
ABD processor responds by automatically recalculating the positions of the
adjoining border and adjacent control points if necessary so that the border
remains smoothly continuous.” (See also Chenal, [0036] (stating that “the
clinician can pull or push on the surface with a pointing device”).) In other
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

19
words, after “landmarks are automatically located by the ABD processor” as
correctly noted by Appellants (App. Br. 14), a clinician manually moves
(and marks) at least one point on the image at a new location using a pointer
device, and thereafter the ABD processor automatically fits the border shape
by moving or stretching the border of the shape, i.e., distorting the
predetermined shape, as the pointer moves the point to the new location.
Thus, Chenal discloses, or at least strongly suggests, the
“automatically fitting” and “distorting” step recited in the last clauses of
pending claims 1 and 9. Likewise, Chenal describes “an assisted border
detector,” i.e., the ABD processor, as well as a “user operated pointing
device” as recited in pending claim 14. (Chenal, [0035], [0058].)
Appellants arguments do not persuade us otherwise.
Appellants do not argue dependent claims separately from
independent claims 1, 9 and 14, and therefore dependent claims 2-8, 10-13
and 15-17 stand or fall together with their respective independent claim. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Conclusion of Law
We conclude that Chenal discloses and/or suggests an assisted or a
semi-automated process that distorts a border shape, as well as a border
detector and a pointing device, as recited in pending independent claim 1, 9
or 14.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to a patent ineligible process, as well as the rejection of
Appeal 2011-001204
Application 10/984,320

20
claims 1-13 and 14-17 for non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-22 and 23-40 of Skyba. We affirm, however, the rejection of
claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chenal.

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

cdc