Ex Parte Solf et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2012

10526513 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TORSTEN SOLF and KAI ECK
___________

Appeal 2009-014882
Application 10/526,513
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014882
Application 10/526,513

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-10, 12, and 14. Claims 11 and 13 have been indicated to be
allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an imaging system for observing the
motion of an object in a vascular system of a body volume. An X-ray
apparatus in the system generates two-dimensional projection images of the
body volume and a position of the tip of the object is determined from the
projection images. This position is associated with a previously acquired
three-dimensional representation of the vascular system. Optimum imaging
parameters are calculated which are subsequently set on the X-ray apparatus
to serve as a basis for the next two-dimensional image. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method of optimizing a two-dimensional image of a
body volume which contains an object, the method comprising:
acquiring a first two-dimensional image of the body volume
with the object in the body volume;
acquiring a three-dimensional representation of feasible
locations of the object within the body volume;
determining a current position of the object in the body volume
based on the first two-dimensional image;
associating the current position of the object with the three-
dimensional representation;
determining imaging parameters which are optimum in respect
of the position of the object based on the three-dimensional
representation; and
Appeal 2009-014882
Application 10/526,513

3
controlling movement of an imaging system based on the
imaging parameters; and generating a second two-dimensional image
of the body volume based on the optimum imaging parameters.

Claims 1-10, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Strommer (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2002/0049375 A1) and Gueziec (U.S. Patent No. 5,951,475).

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 4-5) that the
combination of Strommer and Gueziec fails to render obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation “acquiring a three-
dimensional representation of feasible locations of the object within the
body volume.”
The Examiner found that reconstructing three-dimensional images
using the digital three-dimensional image reconstructor (D3DR) 112 of
Strommer and the medical positioning system (MPS) sensors 162 attached to
the surgical tool 120 collectively correspond to the claimed “acquiring a
three-dimensional representation of feasible locations of the object within
the body volume.” (Ans. 3, 8; Strommer, Fig. 1.) We agree with the
Examiner.
Strommer relates to medical diagnostic and surgery, in particular,
“methods and systems for three-dimensional medical imaging and
navigation.” (¶ [0002].) A three-dimensional imaging system 100 of
Strommer includes a main computer 102, a two-dimensional image
acquisition device 104, a medical positioning system (MPS) 108, a digital
three-dimensional image reconstructor (D3DR) 112, a surgical tool 120,
Appeal 2009-014882
Application 10/526,513

4
MPS sensors 1621, 1622, and 162N, and a display 130. (¶ [0100]; Fig. 1.)
The MPS system 108 receives and processes data related to the location and
orientation of the surgical tool 120 (i.e., the claimed “object’) using the MPS
sensor 1621 and processes data related to the location and orientation of
image transducer 118 using the MPS sensor 1622. (¶ [0111].) Therefore,
Strommer teaches that “multiple feasible locations of the object” are imaged.
Furthermore, the “D3DR 112 reconstructs a three-dimensional image from
captured two-dimensional images.” (¶ [0120].) Thus, Strommer teaches
“acquiring a three-dimensional representation.”
Appellants argue that “Strommer does not describe detecting the
feasible locations (plural) of the image detector using the MPC sensor but
rather the single actual location and orientation of the image detector.”
(Br. 4 (emphases in original).) However, the Examiner cited to the location
and orientation data of the surgical tool 120 using the MPS sensors 161
illustrated in Figure 1 of Strommer (Ans. 3, 8), rather than the location and
orientation of the image transducer 118, for teaching the limitation
“acquiring a three-dimensional representation of feasible locations of the
object within the body volume.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Strommer
and Gueziec would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “acquiring a three-dimensional representation of
feasible locations of the object within the body volume.”
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 5-6) that the
combination of Strommer and Gueziec fails to render obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation “associating the current
position of the object with the three-dimensional representation.”
Appeal 2009-014882
Application 10/526,513

5
The Examiner found that superimposing the surgical tool 486 with the
projection of the three-dimensional image 736 corresponds to the limitation
“associating the current position of the object with the three-dimensional
representation.” (Ans. 3, 9; Strommer, ¶ [0238].) We agree with the
Examiner.
In another embodiment of Strommer, a processor 460 superimposes a
representation 756 of a surgical tool 486 (i.e., the claimed “object”) onto a
real-time two-dimensional navigation image 758. (¶ [0238]; Figs. 16A-B.)
Therefore, Strommer teaches the limitation “associating the current position
of the object with the three-dimensional representation.”
Appellants argue that “there is no teaching or suggestion in Strommer
that the position of the object is associated with the three-dimensional image
using the recited steps” because “[t]he Examiner states that ‘main
computer 102 associates each detected image with the location and
orientation information thereof and the organ timing signal.’” (Br. 5.)
However, the Examiner also cited to the processor 460 of Strommer (Ans. 3,
9), rather than the main computer 102 of Strommer, for teaching the
limitation “associating the current position of the object with the three-
dimensional representation.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Strommer
and Gueziec would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “associating the current position of the object with the
three-dimensional representation.”
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 6-7) that
the combination of Strommer and Gueziec fails to render obvious
Appeal 2009-014882
Application 10/526,513

6
independent claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation “controlling
movement of an imaging system based on the imaging parameters.”
The Examiner found that calculation of the intersection area of the
surgical tool 120 with the two-dimensional image corresponds to
“determining imaging parameters which are optimum in respect of the
position of the object.” (Ans. 3; Strommer, ¶ [0154].) The Examiner also
found that control of the display 130 by the computer 102 corresponds to the
limitation “controlling movement of an imaging system based on the
[optimum] imaging parameters.” (Ans. 3, 10; Strommer, ¶¶ [0123], [0126].)
We agree with the Examiner.
The main computer 102 of Strommer determines a three-dimensional
space occupied by the surgical tool 120 using information generated by the
MPS sensor 1621 and the physical dimensions of surgical tool 120.
(¶ [0154].) The main computer 102 of Strommer further “calculates an
intersection area . . . in which an acquired two-dimensional image . . . and
that three-dimensional space intersect.” (Id.) Thus, Strommer teaches the
limitation “determining imaging parameters which are optimum in respect of
the position of the object.”
In addition, the display 130 of Strommer (i.e., the claimed “image
system”) presents a three-dimensional motion picture of an inspected organ
(¶ [0123]), such that the main computer 102 determines the display reference
coordinate system of the surgical tool 120, in which the surgical tool 120 is
stationary with respect to the inspected organ and the body of the patient
(¶ [0126]). Because the main computer 102 can determine the intersection
area between the surgical tool 120 and the two dimensional image and the
display 130 can present a three-motion picture of the inspected organ using
Appeal 2009-014882
Application 10/526,513

7
the coordinate system of the surgical tool, Strommer teaches or suggests the
claim limitation “controlling movement of an imaging system based on the
[optimum] imaging parameters.”
Appellants argue that “[t]he physician may move the surgical tool in
Strommer without any regard for the main computer and any movement
by the physician will cause the main computer to perform additional
modifications to images” and thus, “the movement described by Strommer is
not ‘based on the imaging parameters.’” (Br. 6 (emphasis in original).)
However, the Examiner also cited to the display 130 of Strommer (Ans. 3,
10) for teaching the claim limitation “controlling movement of an imaging
system based on the [optimum] imaging parameters.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Strommer
and Gueziec would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “controlling movement of an imaging system based
on the imaging parameters.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2 and 12 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Independent claim 3 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the
rejection of claim 3, as well as claims 4-10 and 14, which depend from
claim 3, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Appeal 2009-014882
Application 10/526,513

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-10, 12, and 14 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk