Ex Parte Thiele

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2017

12447969 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2017)

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.
12/447,969 04/30/2009 Karl E. Thiele 2006P00213WOUS 8310
24737 7590 08/15/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue IP, JASON M
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2017 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 KARL E. THIELE
Appeal 2015-007989
Application 12/447,969
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Karl E. Thiele (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s November 14, 2014 final decision (“Final Act.”) rejecting
claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Koninklhke Philips
N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007989
Application 12/447,969
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “ultrasound imaging using both
enhanced and mitigated ultrasound speckle patterns.” Spec. I.2 Claim 1,
reproduced below from page 14 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An ultrasound system comprising:
a transmitter configured to
transmit a plurality of sound waves into a tissue in
a target area of a body, and
convert echoes of said plurality of sound waves
returned by the tissue into echo signals;
a receiver configured to receive and beamform the echo
signals, and to produce scan line data;
a processor configured to process the scan line data to
simultaneously provide anatomical information including
a first output optimized for image quality by
reducing speckle of the scan line data, and
a second output optimized for speckle tracking
without reducing speckle; and
a display configured to create parametric images by
superimposing the first and second outputs for the first scan line
on an image of the target area to show movement of the tissue.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Ophir US 5,474,070 Dec. 12, 1995
Clark US 6,142,942 Nov. 7, 2000
Aase US 2006/0058673 A1 Mar. 16, 2006
Kamiyama US 2006/0241431 A1 Oct. 26, 2006
2 Citations herein to the Specification refer to the Replacement Specification
filed on April 30, 2009.
2
Appeal 2015-007989
Application 12/447,969
Chen, Phase Insensitive Homomorphic Image Processing for Speckle
Reduction, 18 Ultrasonic Imaging 122—39 (1996)
Cincotti, Frequency Decomposition and Compounding of Ultrasound
Medical Images with Wavelet Packets, 20 no. 8 IEEE Transactions on
Med. Imaging 764—71 (Aug. 2001)
Notomi, Measurement of Ventricular Torsion by Two-Dimensional
Ultrasound Speckle Tracking Imaging, 45 no. 12 J. Am. C. Cardiology
2034-41 (June 21, 2005)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14—16, and 20—22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamiyama, Notomi, and Aase.3
Claims 4, 7, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, and Clark.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, Clark, and Cincotti.
Claims 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, and Ophir.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, and Chen.
3 We find reference to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in the heading of this rejection to
be a mere typographical error, as the body of the rejection makes clear that it
is based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. 3—6. We note that Appellant
treats the rejection in this manner. See Appeal Br. 7.
3
Appeal 2015-007989
Application 12/447,969
ANALYSIS
Rejection Based on Kamiyama, Notomi, and Aase
Appellant argues independent claims 1,21, and 22 together. Appeal
Br. 7—12. We select claim 1 as representative, treating claims 21 and 22 as
standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Kamiyama discloses an ultrasound system
substantially as recited in claim 1, including, inter alia, a processor
configured to simultaneously provide anatomical information including a
first output that reduces speckle and a second output that does not reduce
speckle, and a display configured to display sets of images simultaneously.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Kamiyama does not disclose creating
parametric images by superimposing the first and second outputs to show
tissue movement. Id. at 3^4. The Examiner finds that Notomi teaches
creating parametric images by superimposing first and second outputs to
show tissue movement, and that Aase discloses speckle tracking of
ultrasound images. Id. at 4. The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill “to apply the parametric images of [Notomi]
to the ultrasound imaging system of Kamiyama, as to provide parametric
data of an image being tracked.” Id.
Appellant traverses, arguing that Notomi “does not teach, disclose or
suggest, superimposing the first and second outputs as recited in the claims.”
Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant also argues that Aase “does
not teach, disclose, or suggest processing the scan line data to provide ‘a
4
Appeal 2015-007989
Application 12/447,969
second output optimized for speckle tracking without reducing speckle’, as
recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5—6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Initially, we note
that Appellant’s arguments attack the individual teachings of the references
in piecemeal manner, and do not address what the combination of references
teaches, as explained by the Examiner. “Nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, the Examiner relies on
Kamiyama, not Aase, to teach the recited first and second outputs.
Accordingly, it is immaterial to the rejection before us whether Aase also
teaches this feature.
Furthermore, regarding Notomi, Appellant acknowledges that
“Notomi shows speckle tracking images overlaid on the end-diastolic
image,” but argues that “Notomi does not teach, disclose or suggest that the
act of superimposition is performed ‘to show movement of the tissue’, as
recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Notomi describes
Figure 1 as showing “[ljeft ventricular rotation (FVrot) at apical and basal
levels during systole by ‘overlaid’ speckle tracking images. End-systolic
speckle tracking imaging acquisitions are overlaid on the end-diastolic
image with corresponding local trajectories (tail and head of arrows
indicate the location of end-diastole and end-systole).'’'’ Notomi 2035
(emphases added). Thus, as the arrow tails indicate positions at the end of
diastole and the arrow heads indicate positions at the end of systole, the
5
Appeal 2015-007989
Application 12/447,969
arrows show movement of the tissue.4 Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise
us of error.
Further regarding Notomi, Appellant alleges that the Examiner’s
statement in the Examiner’s Answer that “Kamiyama does indeed disclose
generating first and second outputs in accordance with the recitation”
contradicts the statement in the Final Action that “Kamiyama does not
explicitly disclose creating parametric images by superimposing the first and
second outputs for the plurality of scan lines on an image of the target area
to show movement of the tissue.” Reply Br. 3; see also Ans. 11; and Final
Act. 3^4. We do not see any contradiction. Rather, the Examiner clarifies
in the Answer that although Kamiyama discloses generating first and second
outputs, it does not explicitly disclose creating parametric images by
superimposing the outputs.
Regarding Aase, we note that this reference discloses that its “signal
processor 116 tracks the movement of the mitral ring points 516 and 518
through one cardiac cycle” using, for example, a “speckle tracking algorithm
(of B-mode images).” Aase 135 (cited by the Examiner at Final Act. 4).
Thus, Aase discloses speckle tracking and processing of scan line data, and
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. See Spec. 14 (“the
scan line can sequence through a tomographic slice in the body, referred to
as 2D or B-Mode operation”).
4 We note that Notomi also discloses “static B-scan ultrasound imaging”
overlaid with “[mjotion analysis by speckle tracking,” and, thus, appears to
disclose most, if not all, of the recitations of claim 1. See Notomi 2034—35.
6
Appeal 2015-007989
Application 12/447,969
Appellant presents additional arguments in the Reply Brief. For
example, Appellant asserts error in the Examiner’s reliance on Kamiyama
Figure 1. Reply Br. 3^4 (citing Final Act. 3). These arguments are untimely
and will not be considered in the absence of any good faith showing why
they could not have been timely presented in the Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1,21, and 22 as being obvious over Kamiyama, Notomi, and Aase.
For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11,
14—16, and 20, which depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, and which
are not separately argued.
Rejection Based on Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, and Clark
Appellant does not present any argument for this rejection. Appeal
Br. 7—12. Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 4, 7, 8, and 12 as being
unpatentable over Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, and Clark. See Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary
affirmance without consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate
where an appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection).
Rejection Based on Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, Clark, and Cincotti
Appellant does not present any argument for this rejection. Appeal
Br. 7—12. Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claim 9 as being unpatentable over
Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, Clark, and Cincotti.
7
Appeal 2015-007989
Application 12/447,969
Rejection Based on Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, and Ophir
Appellant does not present any argument for this rejection. Id.
Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 13, 17, and 18 as being
unpatentable over Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, and Ophir.
Rejection Based on Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, and Chen
Appellant does not present any argument for this rejection. Id.
Accordingly, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and we
summarily sustain the rejection of claim 19 as being unpatentable over
Kamiyama, Notomi, Aase, and Chen.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—22 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8