Ex Parte Vija et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2017

13626908 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 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.
13/626,908 09/26/2012 Alexander Hans Vija 2011P21249US01 9119
28524 7590 10/26/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
BALI, VIKKRAM
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2017 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER HANS VIJA and XINHONG DING
Appeal 2017-002054
Application 13/626,908
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, IRVIN E. BRANCH,
and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-002054
Application 13/626,908
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketing added):
1. A method of generating corrected emission tomography
images, comprising:
[(A)] obtaining a reconstructed image based on emission
tomography data of a head of a patient;
[(B)] defining a boundary region in the reconstructed image
estimating a position of a skull of the patient in the reconstructed
image; and
[(C)] generating a map of attenuation coefficient values for the
reconstructed image based on the boundary region,
[(D)] wherein the attenuation coefficient values within the
boundary region are selected to correspond to an attenuation
coefficient value for bone, and
[(E)] wherein the attenuation coefficient values for the portion
of the image surrounded by the boundary region are selected to
correspond to an attenuation value for tissue.
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fei et al. (US 2012/0294503 Al) and
Huang et al. (A Boundary Method for Attenuation Correction in Positron
Computed Tomography, JNucl Med Vol. 22: 627—637; 1981).1
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—20. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal 2017-002054
Application 13/626,908
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The rejection is in error because Fei does not disclose
defining a boundary region estimating a position of a skull of a
patient in a reconstructed image based on emission tomography
data of a head of the patient, as alleged. . . . The issue, however,
is not whether “emission tomography” is disclosed by Fei.
Rather, the issue is whether Fei discloses defining a boundary
region estimating a position of a skull of a patient in a
reconstructed image based on emission tomography data of a
head of the patient, and from such reconstructed image with a
defined boundary region, generating a map of attenuation
coefficient values for the reconstructed image based on the
boundary region.
Fei does not disclose defining a boundary region
estimating a position of a skull of a patient in a reconstructed
image based on emission tomography data of a head of the
patient.
App. Br. 6, emphasis added. We agree Fei does not disclose defining a
boundary region estimating a position of a skull of a patient in a
reconstructed image based on emission tomography data. However, this is
not sufficient to show the Examiner erred because contrary to the premise of
Appellants’ argument, we do not find where the Examiner’s rejection relies
3
Appeal 2017-002054
Application 13/626,908
on any allegation that the defining step is based on emission tomography
data.
Appellants’ argument that “Fei does not disclose defining a boundary
region estimating a position of a skull of a patient in a reconstructed image
based on emission tomography data” (App. Br. 6 at multiple locations;
emphasis added) is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language.
Although the “obtaining” step of claim 1 is explicitly limited to being “based
on emission tomography data,” the “defining” step of claim 1 is not
explicitly so limited, nor do Appellants explain how claim 1 would be
inherently so limited, nor do we find alternative claim language that would
similarly mandate the argued limitation.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1—20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1—20 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 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
4