KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 8, 2020

2020001464 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 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.
15/035,929 05/11/2016 RANJITH NAVEEN TELLIS 2013P01380WOUS 3554
24737 7590 12/08/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
SEREBOFF, NEAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@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 RANJITH NAVEEN TELLIS,
THUSITHA DANANJAYA DE SILVA MAGOTUWANA,
and YUECHEN QIAN
____________

Appeal 2020-0014641
Application 15/035,929
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–14 and 20, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed September 11, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed December 16, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
October 21, 2019) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 29,
2019).
2 Appellant identifies “KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.” as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “[a] method for automatically
setting image viewing context.” Spec. ¶ 3.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed matter and emphasis added, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for automatically setting image viewing context,
comprising:
[(a)] extracting image references and body parts associated
with the image references from a report;
[(b)] mapping each of the body parts to an image viewing
context so that image references associated are also associated
with the image viewing context, said image viewing context
including display settings for displaying an image;
[(c)] receiving a user selection indicating an image to be
viewed;
[(d)] determining whether the user selection is one of the
image references associated with the image viewing context
based on the extracted image references and body parts
associated with the image references from the report;
[(e)] displaying the image of the user selection;
[(f)] receiving a user input updating the image; and
[(g)] displaying the updated image based on a specific user
profile.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement (Final Act. 2–4).
Claims 1–3, 7–13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Moriya (US 2012/0183188 A1, pub. July 19, 2012) (id.
at 4–7).
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
3
Claims 4–6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Moriya (id. at 7–8).
ANALYSIS
Written Description
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 11, and 20 as failing to
comply with the written description requirement because “[t]he
[S]pecification does not disclose how the system knows that a selected
image is ‘associated with the image viewing context based on the extracted
image references and body parts associated with the image references from
the report’” (Final Act. 3). According to the Examiner, “[t]he claimed
‘based on’ algorithm is not disclosed” (id.). The Examiner rejects dependent
claims 2–10 and 12–14 for the same reasons (id. at 4).
Appellant argues that the claim language is described in the
Specification at least in paragraphs 3, 8, and 10–14 (Appeal Br. 5).
Responding to Appellant’s arguments in the Answer, the Examiner
explains that the issue:
is whether the disclosure describes how the system determines
the relationship between “the user selection is one of the image
references associated with the image viewing context” given
some “extracted image references and body parts” that are
somehow “associated with the image references from the
report.” The Examiner notes the breadth of the claim language
and the lack of specificity within the disclosure.
Ans. 3.
Whether a specification complies with the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (now 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)), is
a question of fact and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. See, e.g., Purdue
Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
4
disclosure, as originally filed, need not literally describe the claimed subject
matter (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order to satisfy the
written description requirement. But the specification must convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date,
Appellant was in possession of the claimed invention. See id.
Here, the Specification discloses an algorithm in prosaic terms that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand indicates the inventor
had possession of the claimed subject matter. For example, paragraph 3 of
the Specification discloses that the method includes:
extracting image references and body parts associated with the
image references from a report, mapping each of the body parts
to an image viewing context so that image references associated
[with body parts] are also associated with the image viewing
context, receiving a user selection indicating an image to be
viewed, determining whether the user selection is one of the
image references associated with the image viewing context and
displaying the image of the user selection.
As an example, the Specification indicates that “image viewing context”
may correspond to “a window width/level in which the associated image is
to be viewed” (Spec. ¶ 8). The Specification further discloses an exemplary
method of storing the associations between (1) body parts, (2) image
references, and (3) image viewing context (id. ¶ 8). More specifically,
paragraph 10 discloses that “[b]ased on the extracted image information, the
processor 102 can automatically select a window width/level in which a
finding (e.g., mass) in the image should be viewed” using “look-up table 114
stored in the memory 108 which maps body parts/anatomy to window
width/level settings.”
In light of the above disclosure, we agree with Appellant (Appeal
Br. 5) that the Specification provides adequate written description support
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
5
for claims 1, 11, and 20. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20
and dependent claims 2–10 and 12–14 is not sustained.

Anticipation
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 and Dependent Claims 2, 7–10, 12, and
13
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 7–13, and 20 as a group (see Appeal
Br. 6–9; Reply Br. 4–7). We select independent claim 1 as representative.
Claims 2, 7–13, and 20 stand or fall with independent claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) because
Moriya fails to disclose the subject matter of claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 6–9;
Reply Br. 4–7).
Instead, we agree with, and adopt, the Examiner’s findings and
rationales as our own (see Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 7–8). We add the following
discussion for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Moriya discloses all of
the limitations of claim 1 (Final Act. 4–5). In particular, the Examiner finds
that Moriya discloses user input of lesion positions via image finding
field 105, that lesions are linked to an image viewing context by hyperlinks,
selection of an image via image selection button 119b, extraction of the
organ to which the inputted position of the lesion area belongs, and display
of the selected image (id. (citing Figures 5, 7–9, and ¶¶ 89–91, 95, 97, 99,
101, 104, 110–120, 126, 154, 163, 164 of Moriya)).
Focusing on limitation (d) of claim 1, Appellant argues that
paragraphs 101, 104, 163, and 164, on which the Examiner relies, “merely
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
6
disclose extracting the organs belonging to the lesion area received from the
user input using a specific extraction method” (Appeal Br. 7 (citing Moriya
¶ 101)). According to Appellant, Moriya’s “system displays a medical
image based on the user input using a display condition determination means
wherein the image is displayed based on the template that is associated with
the organ from the user input” (id. (citing Moriya ¶¶ 163, 164)). Appellant
argues that “[t]here is no disclosure of Moriya that focuses on determining
an image viewing context for a selected image after image references and
their associated body parts have been extracted from a report” and “these
paragraphs of Moriya are concerned with extracting organs that belong to
the position of the lesion area that is entered into the system” (id.).
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. As best
understood, Appellant does not argue that the organs and lesions extracted
by Moriya’s system are not “body parts” as recited in claim 1. Nor does
Appellant make any attempt to distinguish the claimed “image viewing
context” from Moriya’s display conditions. Indeed, Appellant
acknowledges (Appeal Br. 7) that Moriya’s system displays images based on
a template associated with the extracted organ. Appellant does not point to
any limitation of claim 1 that excludes “extracting organs that belong to the
position of the lesion area that is entered into the system” (id.).
We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[t]here is
simply no discussion within Moriya that is related to determining an image
viewing context that is related to a user selection” (Appeal Br. 8). With
reference to Figure 5, Moriya discloses that when a “thumbnail 121A is
selected from a plurality of thumbnails representing medical images V in
reference image area 117,” “medical image 115 corresponding to
thumbnail 121A is displayed in detailed image display area 113” (Moriya
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
7
¶ 93). Moriya’s system then allows a user to input the position of a link
input lesion, using a crosshair pointer to input the position of a lesion using a
mouse, for example (id. ¶ 95). Lesion position is stored in connection with a
lesion character 105A received via finding field 105 (id. ¶ 97).
Moriya discloses that the system additionally stores “information to
identify a medical image that includes a lesion position,” “(4) an anatomical
region name of a lesion position such as left upper lung lobe, left lingular
segment, or the like,” “(5) coordinate values of a lesion position,” or “a
combination thereof” (id. ¶ 98). Moriya discloses that the organ to which
the inputted lesion position belongs is extracted by computer aided diagnosis
(CAD), including specific CAD techniques for extracting lung, livers, bones,
and hearts (id. ¶ 99). Moriya further discloses that “any other organ
recognition technique may be used as long as it is capable of automatically
extracting the organ to which the specified lesion position belongs” (id.).
More particularly, Moriya discloses that “an association table of position of
lesion area and lesion character candidate associating 203 organ names,
characteristic information of positions of lesion areas, and lesion character
candidates with each other is provided” (id. ¶ 100), as shown in Figure 13 of
Moriya. Lesion characters are stored in lesion storage means 20 (id. ¶ 103),
and “[a] medical image that includes the position 115A of lesion area
obtained from input section 303 and the lesion character 105A linked by a
hyperlink are inserted in finding field 105” (id. ¶ 104). Subsequently,
where the lesion character . . . is selected by input section 303,
that is, if the lesion character 105A is selected, for example, by
selection tool 123 shown in FIG. 5 or the like, medical image
display means 60 obtains position information of a medical
image 115 corresponding to the lesion character 105A from
lesion storage means 20 and displays the medical image 115 in
detailed image display area 113
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
8
(id. ¶ 107).
In particular, Moriya discloses that “link information display
means 40 obtains a position 115A of lesion area from lesion storage
means 20 and displays the position 115A of lesion area corresponding to the
lesion character 105A in the medical image in the detailed image display
area” (id.). Moriya further discloses that
a three-dimensional image is reconstructed from multiple slice
images, i.e., multiple two-dimensional images sliced at a
predetermined thickness, coordinates of the position of a point
specified in any of the two-dimensional images in the three-
dimensional image may be calculated from the slice position
and coordinates of the point, and the coordinate position in the
three-dimensional image corresponding to the coordinates of
the lesion position in the slice image is identified.
(id. ¶ 116). In other words, the lesion position stored as described above in
association with multiple two-dimensional images is used to reconstruct a
three-dimensional image containing the lesion. Subsequently, a
“thumbnail 117B of a reference image in reference image area is selected
and an image 133, which is a reconstructed second medical image
corresponding to the selected thumbnail image 117B, is displayed in detailed
image display area 113” (id. ¶ 119). Moriya further discloses a “display
condition determination means 90 for obtaining a lesion character described
in an image reading report from lesion storage means 20, extracting a
keyword corresponding to the lesion character, and determining the display
condition from the extracted keyword” (id. ¶ 154), “and second medical
image generation means 91 for generating a second medical image based on
the determined display condition and storing the generated second medical
image in medical image storage means 50” (id.). The display conditions
described in paragraph 154 are stored in display condition table 94, which
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
9
“includes display conditions associated with each keyword, such as VR
color template, parameters of gradation and emphasis processing, window
width of medical image, window level, image recognition processing using
CAD and the like” (id. ¶ 160). Display condition table 94 is shown in
Figure 19 of Moriya, reproduced below.

Moriya further discloses:
For example, if the lesion character is a character indicating
blood vessel abnormality, display condition determination
means 90 extracts “blood vessel” as the keyword from the
keyword table, and determines the display condition “101”
corresponding to the keyword “blood vessel” from display
condition table 94a. Then, display condition determination
means 90 outputs the determined display condition “101” and
lesion character “blood vessel” to second medical image
generation means 91.
(id. ¶ 161). Accordingly, Moriya’s system generates a reconstructed
medical image according to display conditions stored in display condition
table 94, which contains display conditions associated with keywords that
represent body parts (e.g., “blood vessel,” “liver”), the display conditions
including, for example, display position information such as window width
of the medical image to be generated. From the forgoing disclosure, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when a user of
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
10
Moriya’s system selects a thumbnail (117A, 117B, 121A) of an image
corresponding to a reconstructed three-dimensional image of an organ
having a lesion, the reconstructed three-dimensional image is displayed
according to the associated display conditions (e.g., width level) stored in
display condition table 94 in association with the organ extracted from the
image information.
Given that Moriya discloses receiving user input of lesion position,
extracting organs, and then generating and displaying medical images based
on user selection of a thumbnail and displaying the generated image
according to display conditions stored in display condition table 94
associated with the extracted organ, we do not agree with Appellant that
Moriya’s system is limited to merely extracting organs that belong to the
position of the lesion area that is entered into the system.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). We also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 7–13, and 20, which fall with claim 1.
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein displaying
the image of the user selection includes displaying the image according to
the image viewing context associated with the one of the image references,
when the user selection is one of the image references associated with the
image viewing context.” In other words, claim 3 requires that the image
viewing context is actually used to display an image whereas claim 1 merely
requires determining whether an image viewing context is associated with
the user selection.
Similar to the discussion above, the Examiner’s position is that
Moriya discloses displaying the image according to the image viewing
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
11
context associated with the one of the image references, when the user
selection is one of the image references associated with the image viewing
context (Final Act. 6).
Appellant argues that “Moriya does not determine the associated
context as recited in claim 1, and further does not display any image using
an image viewing context that is related to a user selection of an image
reference” as required by claim 3 (Appeal Br. 8–9). However, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection for substantially the same
reasons discussed above.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).

Obviousness
Dependent Claims 4–6 and 14
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites “displaying the
image of the user selection according to a default setting, when the user
selection is not one of the image references associated with the image
viewing context.”
The Examiner relies on paragraph 157 of Moriya as disclosing this
limitation (Final Act. 8; Ans. 9–10). According to the Examiner (Ans. 10),
the claimed default setting for displaying images is equivalent to Moriya’s
“user interface for selectively inputting anatomical structures and lesions
when generating an image reading report” wherein “the names of anatomical
structures and lesions are standardized” (Moriya ¶ 157).
Appellant argues that paragraph 157 of Moriya does not disclose a
default setting and that the Examiner’s rejection is based on impermissible
hindsight (Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 7–8).
Appeal 2020-001464
Application 15/035,929
12
We agree with Appellant that the cited portion of Moriya does not
disclose a default setting for displaying images as called for in claim 4. The
discussion of standardization in paragraph 157 of Moriya clearly relates to
standardizing the names of anatomical structures and lesions and not to
standardizing any display conditions for displaying images.
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 4. Claim 14 depends from
independent claim 11 and recites a similar limitation as claim 4 and is
rejected on the same basis (Final Act. 8).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 4–6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14, 20 112(a) Written
Description
1–14, 20
1–3, 7–13,
20
102(a)(1) Moriya 1–3, 7–13,
20

4–6, 14 103(a) Moriya 4–6, 14

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART