Ex Parte Wiemker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

15304932 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/304,932 10/18/2016 Rafael WIEMKER
24737 7590 06/27/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2014P00172WOUS 8506
EXAMINER
WILLS, DIANE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAFAEL WIEMKER, TOBIAS KLINDER, and
THOMAS BUELOW
Appeal2018-005459
Application 15/304,932 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 13, 14, and 20, 2 which are all the
claims pending in the application. Claims App 'x. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE. 3
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 6-12 and 15-19 are conditionally allowed if rewritten in
independent form including all the limitations of the base claims and any
intervening claims. App. Br. 7.
3 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed January
2, 2018; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed April 30, 2018; Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") mailed March 8, 2018; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
August 10, 2017; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed October 18,
2016.
Appeal2018-005459
Application 15/304,932
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "visualize[ ation] of tissue of interest
in contrast-enhanced image data" in the context of "computed tomography
(CT)[,]. .. magnetic resonance (MR), ultrasound (US) and/or other three
dimensional (3D) imaging modalities with contrast enhanced imaging
capabilities" used for pulmonary embolism (e.g., patients with chest pain)
inspection and detection, particularly, in hypo-dense areas (locations) such
as pulmonary arteries. Spec. 1: 1-17. According to Appellants, "an image
processing approach" is utilized "to generate a rendering that highlights
suspected presence and locations of pulmonary embolisms in contrasted-
enhanced volumetric image data" and "[t]he enhancement ... is achieved by
a combination of a vessel filter [ 402, shown in Figure 4] and a hypo-density
filter [ 404]." Spec. 2: 12-15. Appellants' Figure 4 is reproduced below:
324
~
Image data processor module
Appellants' Figure 4 shows image data processor module 324 including
vessel filter 402 and hypo-density filter 404.
2
Appeal2018-005459
Application 15/304,932
As shown in Appellants' Figure 4, vessel filter 402 is arranged to
process each voxel of image data and produce a vesselness value for each
voxel. Hypo-density filter 404 is arranged to process each voxel of image
data and produce a hypo-density value for each voxel based on image data
and iso-surfaces that yield the maximum value of the vesselness for the
voxel at a particular location. Spec. 5:31-34, 7: 14--19.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
obtaining contrast-enhanced image data having a plurality
of voxels, each voxel having an intensity value;
determining a vesselness value for each voxel;
determining a hypo-density value for each voxel;
weighting each of the intensity values by a corresponding
vesselness value;
weighting each of the hypo-density values by the
corresponding vesselness value;
combining the weighted intensity values and the weighted
hypo-density values, thereby generating composite image data;
and
visually displaying the composite image data.
App. Br. 6 (Claims App'x).
REJECTION AND REFERENCES
Claims 1-5, 13, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wiemker et al. (US 2012/0093390 Al; published
April 19, 2012) ("Wiemker I") and Wiemker et al. (US 2010/0074493 Al;
published Mar. 25, 2010) ("Wiemker II"). Final Act. 3-7.
3
Appeal2018-005459
Application 15/304,932
ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the
combination of Wiemker I and Wiemker II teaches all limitations of
independent claim 1, and similarly, claims 14 and 20. Final Act. 3-5. For
example, the Examiner finds Wiemker I teaches Appellants' method,
including: "obtaining contrast-enhanced image data having a plurality of
voxels, each voxel having an intensity value;" "determining a vesselness
value for each voxel;" "weighting each of the intensity values by a
corresponding vesselness value;" and "visually displaying the composite
image data." Final Act. 3--4 (citing Wiemker I i-fi-144, 48).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner finds
Wiemker II further teaches the missing steps from Wiemker I, including:
"determining a hypo-density value for each voxel;" "weighting each of the
hypo-density values by the corresponding vesselness value;" and
"combining the weighted intensity values and the weighted hypo-density
values, thereby generating composite image data." Final Act. 4 (citing
Wiemker II i-fi-157-58, 62). Thus, according to the Examiner, Wiemker I
teaches "determining the vesselness value and using it to weight each
intensity value of a CT image" while Wiemker II teaches "weighting hypo-
density values (minimum encountered on the path so far) by a corresponding
vesselness value (the value of the distance map at the current point)." Id. at
4 (citing Wiemker II i144).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings regarding Wiemker
I or the Examiner's reason for the combination. Instead, Appellants contend
Wiemker II does not teach or suggest any hypo-density value determination
for each voxel [of contrast-enhanced image data], including the disputed
4
Appeal2018-005459
Application 15/304,932
limitations: "determining a hypo-density value for each voxel;" "weighting
each of the hypo-density values by the corresponding vesselness value;" and
"combining the weighted intensity values and the weighted hypo-density
values, thereby generating composite image data" recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 14 and 20. App. Br. 3-5. Particularly, Appellants
argue the cited paragraph 62 of Wiemker II only describes computing a
deficiency value associated with a position along a vascular structure that is
indicative of a difference between (1) a filling value of a position and (2) a
minimum filling value of that position. App. Br. 4 (citing Wiemker II i-f 62).
According to Wiemker II, ( 1) the filling value is defined as an amount of
blood at a position/voxel along a central axis of a vessel, and (2) the
minimum filling value is defined as a smallest amount of blood at a
position/voxel on the path upstream from a given position/voxel on the path.
App. Br. 4 (citing Wiemker II i-fi-1 6, 4 7, 60, 61 ). Based on the definition of
Wiemker II's "deficiency value," Appellants argue (1) "the term hypo-
density is defined in the subject application in Equation 3" and (2)
"[i]nterpreting the claimed hypo-density as merely any difference [in an
amount of blood at two voxels] is unreasonably broad in view of Equation
3. ,, A B 4 pp. r ..
In response, the Examiner takes the position that: ( 1) "the term 'hypo-
density' has a broader meaning in the art, and needs to be more clearly
defined in the claims"; (2) the meaning of "hypo-density" "derived from
Equation 3 described in pages 3 and 4 of the specification, but the language
of the specification is not in the claims, nor is it proper to import limitations
from the specification into the claims"; (3) "the claim language
'determining a hypo-density value for each voxel' does not require that
5
Appeal2018-005459
Application 15/304,932
Equation 3 be used to calculate hypo-density, just that some measure of
hypo-density is disclosed" and, as such, (4) "hypo-density can be broadly
interpreted as meaning any calculation of hypo-density," including a
deficiency value for each vascular structure position as described by
Wiemker II's paragraph 62. Ans. 2.
We agree with the Examiner only in part-that (1) "the term 'hypo-
density' has a broader meaning in the art" and (2) it is improper to read a
limitation (e.g., Equation 3) from the specification into the claims, In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, the term "hypo-
density," albeit given its broadest reasonable interpretation, must still be
interpreted consistent with Appellants' Specification. In re Am. A cad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[T]he proper BRI
construction is not just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification." In re Man Mach.
Interface Techs. LLC, No. 2015-1562, 2016 WL 1567181, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed.
Cir. 2015)) ("A construction that is 'unreasonably broad' and which does not
'reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure' will not pass
muster.").
In this case, the term "hypo-density" is not expressly defined in
Appellants' Specification; however, the ordinary meaning of the word
"hypo" is "less than normal." See Webster's II New College Dictionary.
The term "hypo-density" is described by Appellants' Specification in the
context of (1) "hyper-dense areas in normally contrast-agent filled
pulmonary arteries" (Spec. 1: 16-20); (2) "pulmonary embolisms may be
manifest because they be a lower density than the normal vessel ... a higher
6
Appeal2018-005459
Application 15/304,932
HU than the surrounding parenchymal or mediastinal tissue" (Spec. 2: 1--4 );
(3) "enhancement [] achieved by a combination of a vessel filter and a hypo-
filter" "to generate a rendering that highlights suspected presence and
locations of pulmonary embolisms in contrasted-enhanced volumetric image
data" (Spec. 2:12-15); (4) the difference a vesselness value of each voxel
and a hypo-density value for each voxel (Spec. 5:31-8:5); and (5) how the
hypo-density filter 404 is used to process each voxel of the volumetric image
data I(x), independently, in connection with an iso-surface corresponding
thereto and to produce, for each voxel, a scalar hypo-density feature vector
H(x) based on the volumetric image data I(x) and the iso-surfaces S(T) that
yielded the maximum value of VT (Spec. 7: 14--19).
As such, when viewed in light of Appellants' Specification, we agree
with Appellants that the term "hypo-density value for each voxel" cannot be
broadly interpreted to encompass Wiemker II' s disclosure of "a deficiency
value" associated with a position along a vascular structure that is indicative
of a difference between (1) a filling value of a position and (2) a minimum
filling value of that position, where respective filling values represent an
amount of blood in a neighborhood of the respective position in the vascular
structure. Reply Br. 2; see also Wiemker II i-fi-1 6, 11, 60-62.
Separately, we also note that (1) nowhere in Wiemker II is there any
teaching or suggestion of "hyper-density" or pulmonary embolism
inspection of hypo-dense areas or "hypo density" locations, and (2) the
Examiner's rationale to incorporate the teachings of Wiemker II into
Wiemker I, i.e., "the results of the combination were predictable" is without
any "rational underpinning" as required by KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); andin re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed Cir.
7
Appeal2018-005459
Application 15/304,932
2006) ("[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.").
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 2-5, and 13 dependent therefrom. We also
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 14 and 20,
argued for the same reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 5).
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 13, 14, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we reverse the Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-5, 13,
14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8