Ex Parte Truyen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

12746244 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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.
12/746,244 06/04/2010 Roel Truyen 2007P01960WOUS 7558
24737 7590 06/27/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue RAPILLO, KRISTINE K
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 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 ROEL TRUYEN
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention is directed to “[navigation
through large datasets comprising a stack of thin slices, each slice defining
2-dimensional (2-D) image” (Spec. 1,11. 6—8).
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. (Rejected, Previously presented) A system for displaying
individual 2D images comprised in a stack of 2D images on a
display, the system comprising:
a path hardware unit that updates path data to determine a
next position of a next graphical lumen indicator to display on a
next 2D image, wherein the next graphical lumen indicator
indicates a next lumen in the next 2D image comprised in the
stack of 2D images, wherein updating the path data is based on a
current position of a current graphical lumen indicator displayed
on a currently displayed 2D image, wherein the current graphical
lumen indicator indicates a current lumen in the current 2D
image comprised in the stack of 2D images;
an input hardware unit that receives a user input to select
the next 2D image from the stack of 2D images;
an image hardware unit that selects the next 2D image
from the stack of 2D images and displays the selected next 2D
image on the display, based on the user input; and
an indicator hardware unit that determines the next
position of the next graphical lumen indicator to display on the
displayed selected next 2D image, based on the path data and
user input;
wherein the indicator hardware unit, in response to the
current position of the current graphical lumen indicator
displayed on the currently displayed 2D image being connected
to the selected next 2D image plane by one segment of a
predefined guideline that does not cross any other 2D image
plane, determines the next position of the next graphical lumen
indicator to display on the selected next 2D image to be x, y and
z coordinates of an end of the one segment in the selected next
2D image plane,
wherein the indicator hardware unit, in response to the
current position of the current graphical lumen indicator
displayed on the currently displayed 2D image being connected
to the selected next 2D image plane by two segments of the
2
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
predefined guideline that do not cross any other 2D image plane,
determines the next position of the next graphical lumen
indicator to display on the selected next 2D image to be x, y and
z coordinates of an end of a segment of the two segments in a
lumen traversal direction in the selected next 2D image plane,
and
wherein the indicator hardware unit, in response to the
current position of the current graphical lumen indicator
displayed on the currently displayed 2D image not being
connected to the selected next 2D image plane by a segment of
the predefined guideline that do not cross any other 2D image
plane, determines the next position of the next graphical lumen
indicator to display on the selected next 2D image to be x and y
coordinates of the current position and a z coordinate of a next
2D image plane.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Claims 1—6, 8, 9, and 11—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yoakum-Stover (US 7,372,988 B2; iss. May 13,
2008), and Dachille (US 2009/0063118; pub. Mar. 5, 2009).
Claims 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoakum-Stover.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoakum-Stover and Dachille.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Yoakum-Stover and Dachille teaches or suggests a
system for “displaying individual 2D images comprised in a stack of 2D
3
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
images on a display,” the system comprising a “next graphical lumen
indicator” that “indicates a next lumen in the next 2D image comprised in
the stack of 2D images” (Claim 1).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Yoakum-Stover
1. Yoakum-Stover discloses generating a three-dimensional (3D)
visualization image of an object such as an organ using volume visualization
techniques (Abstract), and acknowledges that it is well-known that 3D
images can be formed by stacking and interpolating between two-
dimensional (2D) pictures produced from scanning machines (col. 1,11. 27—
34). Figure 3 is reproduced below:
FIG. 3
Figure 3 shows a 2D cross-section of a volumetric colon (col. 4,11.
51—53). In examination of an object such as a colon, the physician views a
2D slice overview map to indicate the section to be examined, clicks on the
desired points, and the scan data is converted to 3D voxels, wherein the
4
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
inside of the organ is traversed from the selected start to the selected
finishing point (col. 6,11. 43—60).
Dachille
2. Dachille discloses visualization and interactive navigation of virtual
images of internal organs (Abstract), and acknowledges that it is well-known
to enable 2D visualization of human organs for diagnosis and formulation of
treatment strategies (13), wherein 3D images can be derived from a series of
2D views (“slices” of the actual 3D volume) taken from different angles or
positions and a trained personnel can correlate a series of 2D images derived
from the data slices to obtain useful 3D information (| 4). Although
Dachille acknowledges that stacks of slices may make it difficult to diagnose
abnormalities {id.), Dachille discloses generating 2D image datasets
comprising Multi-Slice Computed Tomography (MSCT) etc. and software
for converting the 2D datasets to a volume dataset (| 22) and then obtaining
2D/3D formatted image datasets (124), displaying 2D/3D images from
2D/3D views that are rendered (125), and generating various types of 2D
and 3D views based on visualization parameters (126). In Dachille,
methods are employed to monitor a user’s navigation through a virtual
image space (2D or 3D space) and provide tactile feedback to the user
(130).
IV. ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments that
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
Appellant contends “Yoakum-Stover and Dachille are directed
towards a 3D virtual colonoscopy software application for navigating
through a 3D volume data set, not individual 2D images.” (App. Br. 6). In
particular, Appellant contends “Yoakum-Stover modifies the view or
orientation to a particular portion of the 3D image” while “Dachille teaches
away from using 2D images” by disclosing that “stacks of slices do not
provide efficient or intuitive means to examine and evaluate interior regions
of organs ...” (id.).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings, and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims
would have been obvious over the combined teachings.
As the Examiner explains, “in order to make the images that make up
the 3D images, a stack of 2D images is captured” (Final. Rej. 13). In
particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, “Yoakum-Stover discloses in
one embodiment that three dimensional (3D) images can be formed by
stacking and interpolating between two dimensional (2D) images produced
from the scanning machines” wherein “[the] physician can view a two
dimensional slice overview map to indicate the section to be examined” and
the “starting point and finishing point of a path to be viewed can be
indicated by the physician operator” (Ans. 3; FF 1). We agree that Yoakum-
Stover discloses that “an operator can define portions of a selected organ to
examine on a display by indicating a starting and stopping point
(marker/graphical lumen indicator)” (Final Rej. 2; FF 1). As the Examiner
explains, in Yoakum-Stover, “an operating user may adjust the navigation
6
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
from the predetermined path (i.e. modify the current path) to better view a
region of interest in the image,” which “suggests that a user may determine
the next position of a lumen indicator” (Final Rej. 4). Thus, according to the
Examiner, “Yoakum-Stove discloses the claimed invention” except for
“explicitly” disclosing navigating through 2D images, but relies on Dachille
for such teaching and suggestion, wherein “[i]t would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
navigate lumen of a structure displayed in [a] 3D image” (Ans. 4).
Here, we also agree with the Examiner’s finding “Dachille discloses
one or more 2D/3D image rendering methods for generating various types of
2D and 3D views” wherein a method “is used to monitor a user’s flight path
through a virtual image space (2D or 3D space), where the direction of the
flight path is determined by user” (Ans. 4; FF 2). That is, “Dachille
discloses a navigation system in which a use may travel along a
predetermined path or adjust the path in order to view regions of interest”
wherein an “indicator hardware unit. . . determines the next position of the
lumen indicator.” (Final Rej. 4; FF 2).
As the Examiner points out, although Appellant contends “Dachille
teaches away from using 2D images” (Final Rej. 12), the Examiner explains
“in order to make the images that make up the 3D images, a stack of 2D
images is captured” (Final. Rej. 13). Further, as the Examine points out,
Dachille teaches rendering both 2D and 3D images, generating various
types of 2D views as well as 3D views such that a user’s flight path is
monitored through a virtual 2D or 3D space (Ans. 4; FF 2).
Our reviewing court guides: “A reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
7
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh
Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(citations omitted). However, a reference does not teach away if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention from amongst
options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not
discredit or discourage investigation into the invention claimed. In re
Fulton, 391F.3dll95, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When combining references to
establish obviousness, the appropriate consideration is whether the proposed
combination would work for its intended purpose, not whether the
combination is inconsistent with the stated goal of one of the references, as
Appellant argues. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Here, Dachille specifically discloses that it is well-known to enable
2D visualization of human organs, wherein 3D images can be derived from a
series of 2D views/slices taken from different angles or positions (FF 2).
Thus, Dachille teaches rendering both 2D and 3D images (id.). Dachille’s
mere expression of a general preference for using 3D images does not
constitute a teaching away from the alternative 2D images because such
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
Further, the Examiner relies upon Yoakum-Stover to teach and
suggest that “three dimensional (3D) images can be formed by stacking and
interpolating between two dimensional (2D) images produced from the
scanning machines” wherein the 2D slice overview map is then viewed to
indicate the section to be examined (Ans. 3; FF 1). Thus, as discussed
8
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
above, we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Yoakum-Stover (as
well as Dachille) for teaching and suggesting “displaying individual 2D
images comprised in a stack of 2D images on a display” {id.), as recited in
claim 1.
The Supreme Court has clearly stated the “combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). That is, when considering obviousness of a
combination of known elements, the operative question is thus “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” Id. at 417. The skilled artisan is “a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
Here, we agree with the Examiner that combining Yoakum-Stover’s
disclosure of display a stack of 2D images (FF 1) with Dachille’s teaching
and suggesting of navigation through a virtual 2D/3D space (and thus,
indicating subsequent/next 2D image in the stack in the navigation) (FF 2)
would have realized a predictable result. KSR 550 U.S. at 421.
On this record, we are unconvinced of Examiner error in finding the
combination of Yoakum-Stover and Dachille teaches or at least suggests
“displaying individual 2D images comprised in a stack of 2D images on a
display” comprising a “next graphical lumen indicator” that “indicates a next
lumen in the next 2D image comprised in the stack of 2D images” (claim 1).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2—6, 8, 9, and
11—15 falling therewith (App. Br. 7) over Yoakum-Stover and Dachille.
As to claim 4, Appellant merely contends the combination of
“Yoakum-Stover and Dachille do not disclose, suggest, or imply selecting a
9
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
next 2D image to be displayed based on any input” (App. Br. 7). However,
as the Examiner points out, the Examiner relies on Yoakum-Stover for
teaching and suggesting “allowing the operator [to] adjust both the position
and viewing angle” wherein the user “may select a point within each
segment” and the operator “input during the guided navigation” (Ans. 4).
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Yoakum-Stover teaches or at
least suggest “the operator (i.e. physician) may select which portion to [be]
examine[d] and displayed” (id. at 5). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
the combination of Yoakum-Stover and Dachille teaches or at least suggest
selecting the next portion (2D image) to be displayed for examining.
For similar reasons, we also are unconvinced with Appellant’s
contentions that Yoakum-Stover “does not compute a 2D image” with
respect to claim 5 (App. Br. 8), and that Yoakum-Stover “does not disclose,
suggest or imply updating path data for determining a next position of a next
graphical lumen indicator to display” with respect to claims 7, and 16—18
(App. Br. 8—9) and claims 10, 19, and 20 (App. B. 9-10). As Appellant
concedes, “Yoakum-Stover discloses a next position in a virtual 3D image,
which can be displayed as a 2D view” (id.). Further, as the Examiner finds,
Yoakum-Stover discloses and suggest “the steps of representing the colon
lumen as a plural stack of image data which at least indicates starting with a
stack of 2D images” (Ans. 6). We agree with the Examiner’s findings, and
find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings. We adopt the Examiner’s
findings, which we incorporate herein by reference.
10
Appeal 2016-004901
Application 12/746,244
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 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
11