Ex Parte Ye et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2015

12995679 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/995,679 12/02/2010 Jinghan Ye
24737 7590 12/23/2015
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2008P00880WOUS 3057
EXAMINER
KHOLDEBARIN, IMAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2015 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINGHAN YE, HONGJIE LIANG, JOHN VESEL,
DAVID SOWARDS-EMMERD, LINGXIONG SHAO, and
JODY L. GARRARD
Appeal2014-000956
Application 12/995,679
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3-10, and 12-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-000956
Application 12/995,679
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' claimed invention concerns "the generation of attenuation
maps for use in electronic image reconstruction." Spec. 1: 5---6. Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of correcting a PET or SPECT image of an
imaged subject for attenuation, the method comprising:
performing a volumetric attenuation imaging scan of the
subject with an X-ray source and an X-ray detector to generate
volumetric X-ray attenuation imaging data, wherein the
volumetric attenuation imaging scan is performed while the
subject is breathing;
using the volumetric X-ray attenuation imaging data to
generate a gamma ray attenuation map;
performing a gamma ray imaging scan of the subject with
a gamma ray detector to generate PET or SPECT imaging data;
and
using the gamma ray attenuation map to correct the PET
or SPECT imaging data for attenuation, and to generate an
attenuation-corrected PET or SPECT image.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over DaSilva (US 2009/0087065 Al; Apr. 2, 2009)
and Boese (US 2007/0003014 Al; Jan. 4, 2007).
Claims 4--7, 13-16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DaSilva, Boese, and Hu (US 6,370,217 Bl; Apr. 9, 2002).
Claims 9 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over DaSilva and Hu.
2
Appeal2014-000956
Application 12/995,679
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants assert "DaSilva discloses a 'volumetric' imaging scan, as
specifically defined in the present application" and Boese discloses a method
"directed to compensating for patient motion during the recording of a series
of two-dimensional images taken at different times." App. Br. 7 (emphasis
added). According to Appellants, "[i]t would not have been obvious to
apply the non-volumetric process of Boese to volumetric process of
DaSilva" because "[i]n a volumetric imaging method, there is simply no
reason to apply the Boese process because all of the two-dimensional slices
which comprises the volumetric imaging data are acquired at the same
time." Id. at 8.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner
concluded DaSilva alone would have suggested the claimed subject matter
to one of skill in the art, see Ans. 16, and Appellants have not addressed this
conclusion. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites "[ t ]he method of claim 1, further comprising
randomizing the volumetric attenuation imaging scan." Appellants argue Hu
does not teach or suggest a randomized volumetric imaging scan because
"the process described in Hu is not 'randomized' - indeed, the Hu process
is very deliberately directed to imaging only user-specified portions of a
physiological cycle such as the cardiac cycle." App. Br. 8.
We disagree. Appellants' claims and specification make clear that the
"randomizing the volumetric attenuation imaging scan" limitation recited in
claim 4 encompasses simply varying the rotational speed of the scan,
3
Appeal2014-000956
Application 12/995,679
including doing so in a predetermined fashion. For example, claim 5 recites,
"the method of claim 4, wherein the randomizing comprises performing
multiple passes at varying rotational speeds." Id. at 12 (emphasis added).
And Appellants' specification describes a "representative randomization
technique" that involves progressively raising or lowering the speed of a
multiple pass x-ray scan. See Spec. 8:31-9:5. The Examiner found Hu
teaches performing scans at different rotational speeds and concluded a
combination of Hu, DaSilva, and Boese teaches the recited subject matter.
See Final Act. 4 (citing Hu 2:38--44). Appellants' arguments have not
persuaded us the Examiner's conclusion is erroneous. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
Remaining Claims
Appellants' arguments for claims 3, 5-10, and 12-24 are substantially
similar to Appellants' arguments for claims 1 and 4, see Br. 5-11, and are
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. We therefore sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 5-10, and 12-24.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and
12-24.
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
lv
4