14268404 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2020)

General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 25, 2020

14268404 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2020)

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. 14/268,404 05/02/2014 Grant Morey STEVENS 272937 (553-1899US1) 3657 45436 7590 02/25/2020 DEAN D. SMALL THE SMALL PATENT LAW GROUP LLC 225 S. MERAMEC, STE. 725T ST. LOUIS, MO 63105 EXAMINER MIDKIFF, ANASTASIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2884 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2020 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): Docket@splglaw.com jleclair@splglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GRANT MOREY STEVENS, DOMINIC JOSEPH CROTTY, and ROY A. NILSEN Appeal 2019-001949 Application 14/268,404 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LILAN REN, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “General Electric Company.” Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2019-001949 Application 14/268,404 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “computed tomography (CT) imaging,” particularly, “for selection of bowtie filtration configuration[.]” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computed tomography (CT) imaging system comprising: a selectable pre-object filter module interposed between an X-ray source and an object to be imaged, the selectable pre- object filter module configured to absorb radiation from the X- ray source to control distribution of X-rays passed to the object to be imaged, the selectable pre-object filter module comprising plural pre-object filter configurations providing corresponding X-ray distributions, wherein the selectable pre-object filter module is selectable between the plural configurations to provide a selected pre-object filter configuration of the plural pre-object filter configurations to perform a desired imaging scan of the object to be imaged; a detector configured to receive X-rays that have passed through the object to be imaged; and a processing unit operably coupled to the selectable pre- object filter module and the detector, the processing unit configured to: identify an anatomy to be imaged; determine a corresponding image quality metric and radiation dose metric separately for each of the plural pre-object filter configurations based on particular operational parameters to be used to perform the desired imaging scan, wherein the operational parameters include tube voltage and tube current; and select the selected pre-object filter configuration from among the pre-object filter configurations based upon the separately determined corresponding image quality metrics and radiation dose metrics. Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 25–26) (emphases added). Appeal 2019-001949 Application 14/268,404 3 REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Toth US 2005/0089136 A1 Apr. 28, 2005 Yoshida US 2012/0002782 A1 Jan. 5, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–15, 18, 19, 21, and 22 “under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 )/(a)(2)” for anticipation by Yoshida. Final Act. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Toth. Final Act. 9. OPINION In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yoshida discloses an “L filter” which “has a higher image quality for low dose scout scans” as well as an “S filter” which “has a higher image quality for higher dose regular scans.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that this prior art disclosure meets the limitation “determine a corresponding image quality metric and radiation dose metric separately for each of the plural pre-object filter configurations” of claim 1. Id. The Examiner also finds that the limitation “based on particular operational parameters to be used to perform the desired imaging scan” is met by the prior art disclosure of “source tube V and/or mA required for a low dose scout, scan, as well as a desired FOV, patient support position, scan angle, and contrast mode, to be used to perform the desired Appeal 2019-001949 Application 14/268,404 4 imaging scan[.]” Id. at 3–4 (citing Yoshida ¶¶ 32, 50–52, 60, 65, 78, 83–97, and 101–110). The record shows Yoshida discloses compensation filters that “adjust the X-ray dose irradiated from the X-ray tube 201 so that the X-ray intensity can be varied.” Yoshida ¶ 50 (cited in Final Act. 4). These compensation filters include an “L-sized compensation filter,” which “is suitable for the scanning target having a large width such as an abdominal region,” as well as an S-sized compensation filter, which “is suitable for the scanning target having a small radius such as a head region, a heart region . . . or a child.” Id. ¶¶ 51, 52 (cited in Final Act. 4). The filters are selected “according to the designated reconstruction FOV” or field of view. Id. ¶ 65 (cited in Final Act. 4); see also id. ¶ 84 (cited in Final Act. 4). Appellant acknowledges that Yoshida “selects the filter based on the reconstruction FOV,” but argues that the filter selection in Yoshida does not disclose “determin[ing] a corresponding image quality metric and radiation dose metric separately for each of the plural pre-object filter configurations” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14. The record before us shows that the Examiner finds the limitation “determine a corresponding image quality metric . . . for each of the plural pre-object filter configurations” anticipated solely by the prior art disclosure of the L-size filter having “a higher image quality for low dose scout scans” and the S-size filter having “a higher image quality for higher dose regular scans.” Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 4. The record, however, lacks evidentiary support showing that the prior art discloses a system with a processor configured to determine a certain “corresponding image quality metric,” which is distinguishable from the broader phrase “image quality” in the Appeal 2019-001949 Application 14/268,404 5 Examiner’s finding. See id. As a result, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1. We likewise reverse the rejections of claims dependent from claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 18 both recite this particular limitation and we reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 10 and 18 for the reasons provided with regard to claim 1. We likewise reverse the rejections of claims dependent from claims 10 and 18. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. More specifically, DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–7, 10–15, 18, 19, 21, 22 102 Yoshida 1–3, 5–7, 10–15, 18, 19, 21, 22 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20 103 Yoshida, Toth 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20 Overall Outcome: 1–22 REVERSED