KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2021

2021005515 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2021)

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.
16/500,851 10/04/2019 MATHIAS SCHLUETER 2017P02085WOUS 5349
24737 7590 12/13/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
SHIN, SOO JUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2021 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 MATHIAS SCHLUETER and ANDRE GOOSSEN
____________________

Appeal 2021-005515
Application 16/500,851
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 15 through 17. 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(a). According to Appellant, KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., is the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-005515
Application 16/500,851

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an image processing system to improve
visualization. Spec. Abstract, pages 1–3. The system identifies, based on an
image histogram for a structure image, an image value sub-range, associated
with a region of interest, information about the regions outside the subrange
is excluded when determining the parameters, such as brightness, contrast,
mean intensity or range, associated with rendering the image. Spec. pages
2–3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. An image processing system, comprising:
a memory that stores a plurality of instructions; and
processor circuitry that couples to the memory and
that is configured to execute the plurality of instructions to:
receive an input image;
filter said input image to obtain a structure image
from said input image, said structure image including a
range of image values;
identify, based on an image histogram for said
structure image, an image value sub-range within said range,
said sub-range being associated with a region of interest;
output at least one of:
a specification for said image value sub-range,
a mask image associated with the sub-range and
configured to indicate the region of interest,
a complementary mask image associated with a
complement of said sub-range, and configured to
indicate the complement of said region of interest, and
compute a respective weight for the image values
outside the sub-range, said weight determining a
contribution of the respective image values in a visualization
of the input image, wherein said weight measures a
separation between two classes of at least two classes,
wherein one class of the two classes corresponds to
the region of interest, and wherein the other class of the two
classes corresponds to the background or to at least one
radio-opaque object.
Appeal 2021-005515
Application 16/500,851

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS 2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, and 15 through 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Huo et al. (US 2008/0118139 A1,
pub. May 22, 2008). Final Act. 4–9.
The Examiner has rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Huo and Chiang (US 2008/0037897 A1, pub. Feb. 14,
2008). Final Act. 10.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, and 15
through 17 and the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 3.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s anticipation rejection is in error as
Huo does not disclose computing a weight for image values outside the sub-
range, associated with a region of interest, where the weight determines a
contribution of image values in a visualization of the input range and where
the weight measures a separation between a region of interest and the
background or a radio opaque object as recited in each of independent
claims 1, 11, and 15. Appeal Br. 11–13; Reply Br. 2–9.
The Examiner interprets the claim weights as “any value, number,

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 11, 2021
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed September 24, 2021 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed January 13, 2021 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed July 27, 2021 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2021-005515
Application 16/500,851

4
parameter, etc. derived/computed from the image that contributes the
visualization of the image (having any effect/influence) and is used to
determine the separation between the two classes.” Ans. 12. The Examiner
finds that Huo teaches calculating the weights outside the region of interest.
Ans. 12 (citing Huo ¶ 13). Further, the Examiner finds that Huo teaches a
separation between two classes, where one is the region of interest. Ans. 13
(citing Huo ¶ 46 and Fig. 3).
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 15. Each of these
claims recite limitations directed to computing a weight for image values
outside the sub-range, associated with a region of interest, where the weight
determines a contribution of image values in a visualization of the input
range and where the weight measures a separation between a region of
interest and the background or a radio opaque object. We have reviewed the
teachings of Huo cited by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer,
and do not find that the cited portions of Huo teach a weight which is both:
a) computed from image values outside the sub-range associated with a
region of interest and; b) measures a separation between the region of
interest and another region. As discussed above the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments cites to two different paragraphs to teach this
limitation. The Examiner cites to paragraph 13 of Huo, and seems to be
equating the normalization factor, discussed in paragraph 13, to the weight
for image values outside the sub-range. Ans. 12. We concur that Huo, in
paragraph 13 teaches that the normalization factor is determined based upon
image values from outside the region of interest; however this paragraph of
Huo does not show that the normalization factor also measures a separation
Appeal 2021-005515
Application 16/500,851

5
between the region of interest and another region. We have reviewed
paragraph 46 and Figure 3 of Huo, which the Examiner cites to teach this
limitation (Ans. 12–13) and we do not find that these paragraphs discuss the
normalization factor (discussed in paragraph 13 of Huo and which the
Examiner equated to the weight) measures a separation between the region
of interest and another region. Thus, the Examiner has not presented
sufficient evidence to support the finding that Huo discloses all of the
limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 15. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 11,
and 15 through 17.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 3 relies
upon the teachings of Huo for the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 3
is dependent. Final Act 10. The Examiner has not shown that the additional
teachings of Chiang make up for the deficiencies noted with respect to the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 3 for the same reasons as claim 1.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 11 and 15
through 17.
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–11,
15–17
103 Huo 1, 2, 4–11,
15–17
3 103 Huo, Chiang 3
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 15–17

REVERSED