KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

15756605 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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.
15/756,605 03/01/2018 Michael GRASS 2015P01090WOUS 3754
24737 7590 07/02/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
RUSH, ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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 MICHAEL GRASS,
ROBERT JOHANNES FREDERIK HOMAN, and
ROLAND PROKSA
________________

Appeal 2020-000086
Application 15/756,605
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

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 Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000086
Application 15/756,605

2

Summary of the Disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to the generation of a
motion corrected computed tomography (CT) image. Abstract.
Exemplary claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A computed tomography image generation apparatus for
generating an image of a human head, wherein the computed
tomography image generation apparatus comprises:
a projections providing unit implemented by a computer
processor for providing measured two-dimensional projections
of the head, wherein the measured projections have been
measured at different times while an x-ray tube, which emits
radiation for traversing the head, has been moved around the
head and wherein the measured projections have been generated
based on the radiation after having traversed the head;
a reconstruction unit implemented by the computer processor
for reconstructing a three-dimensional first computed
tomography image of the head based on the provided measured
projections;
a transformation determination unit implemented by the
computer processor for determining three-dimensional
transformations of the first computed tomography image of the
head for different measured projection groups, wherein a
measured projection group comprises one or several measured
projections, wherein the transformation determination unit is
adapted to determine for a certain measured projection group a
transformation such that a degree of similarity between the
certain measured projection group and a calculated projection
group is increased, wherein the calculated projection group
corresponds to the certain measured projection group and is
calculated by transforming the first computed tomography
image in accordance with the determined transformation for
the certain measured projection group and by forward
projecting the transformed first computed tomography image;
wherein the reconstruction unit is adapted to reconstruct a
motion corrected three-dimensional second computed
Appeal 2020-000086
Application 15/756,605

3

tomography image based on the measured projections and the
determined transformations determined for the different
measured projection groups; and
wherein the computed tomography image generation apparatus
comprises an examination zone comprising a first part that
includes the human head and a second part wherein the
reconstruction unit is adapted to reconstruct the first computed
tomography image and the second computed tomography image
such that they show the examination zone and is further adapted
to perform a motion correction only for the first part of the
examination zone.
The Examiner’s Rejections and Cited References
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 14, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kerstin Müller et al.,
Fully Automatic Head Motion Correction for Interventional C-arm Systems
using Fiducial Markers, Procs. of the 13th Fully Three-Dimensional Image
Reconstruction in Radiology and Nuclear Med., 534–37 (June 2015)
(preprint version) (“Müller”) and Barfuss et al. (US 2013/0202171 A1;
published Aug. 8, 2013) (“Barfuss”). Final Act. 14–21.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 6, 10–16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Andre Z. Kyme et al.,
Practical Aspects of a Data-Driven Motion Correction Approach for Brain
SPECT, IEEE Transactions on Med. Imaging, vol. 22, no. 6, 722–29 (June
2003) (“Kyme”) and Barfuss. Final Act. 21–34.
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kyme, Barfuss, and I.M.J. van
der Bom et al., Evaluation of optimization methods for intensity-based 2D-
3D registration in x-ray guided interventions, Med. Imaging 2011: Image
Appeal 2020-000086
Application 15/756,605

4

Processing, Proc. of SPIE, vol. 7962, 1–15 (Mar. 2011) (“Van der Bom”).
Final Act. 34–36.
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kyme, Barfuss, and Pelc et al.
(US 4,580,219; issued Apr. 1, 1986) (“Pelc”). Final Act. 36–37.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kyme, Barfuss, and Quist (US
2006/0188134 A1; published Aug. 24, 2006). Final Act. 37–40.
The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Kyme, Barfuss, and Allmendinger et al. (US
2015/0063534 A1; published Mar. 5, 2015) (“Allmendinger”). Final Act.
40–42.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites an apparatus that reconstructs a three-dimensional first
computed tomography image of a head based on projections measured at
different times from an x-ray tube that emits radiation while moving around
the head. See, e.g., Spec. Fig. 2 (illustrating a first computed tomography
image). “Patients like acute stroke patients may not be able to avoid motion
during the acquisition of the projections such that the reconstructed image of
the head may comprise motion artifacts” (Spec. p. 1, ll. 18–20) such as
motion artifacts 19 depicted in the Specification’s Figure 2 (id. p. 11, ll. 20–
21). To correct for such motion, the claimed apparatus determines three-
dimensional transformations of the first computed tomography image that
increase the degree of similarity (i.e., decrease discrepancies) between
measured projections and projections that are calculated by forward
projecting the first computed tomography image as transformed by the three-
Appeal 2020-000086
Application 15/756,605

5

dimensional transformations. See id. p. 12, l. 2–p. 13, l. 4, Fig. 3 (illustrating
a calculated projection obtained by forward projecting a first computed
tomography image), Fig. 4 (illustrating a gradient angle difference image).
“The transformations determined for the different measured projection
groups”—i.e., for different subsets of measured projections—“describe the
motion of the head.” Id. p. 13, ll. 24–25. Thus, the claimed apparatus uses
the transformations “to reconstruct a motion corrected three-dimensional
second computed tomography image based on the measured projections.” Id.
p. 13, ll. 26–28.
The Examiner finds that Müller fits a forward projection of three-
dimensional reference marker positions to actual two-dimensional candidate
points. See, e.g., Final Act. 15 (citing Müller at *2). Thus, the Examiner
finds that Müller’s method increases “the degree of similarity, between r ,
and mi,j, which are the positions of markers identified in the calculated
(transformed) projection group and the measured projection group,
respectively.” Id. at 13; see also Ans. 36. The Examiner further finds that
Müller’s pre-calibrated projection matrix teaches or suggests the determined
transformation. See Final Act. 13; Adv. Act. 2 (Feb. 11, 2019) (“[T]he pre-
calibrated projection matrix is still a transformation that is determined”);
Ans. 34.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding that Müller teaches
or suggests the apparatus of claim 1 because Müller does not determine a
transformation that “increases a degree of similarity between [a] certain
measured projection group and a calculated projection group.” Appeal Br. 6.
Rather, Appellant argues, Müller relies on fiducial markers “detected in
Appeal 2020-000086
Application 15/756,605

6

projections by identifying centroids of fiducial markers positions through
component analysis.” Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant’s characterization of Müller accords with Müller’s teaching
of detecting fiducial markers through a “3-D connected component analysis
. . . applied to identify the centroids of the marker positions in 3-D.” Müller,
*2. In particular, Müller uses pre-calibrated projection matrices to forward
project the three-dimensional reference markers “onto each projection image
yielding the 2-D reference points , ,” where i is the marker and j is the
projection image. Id. To correct for motion, Müller “estimates a 3-D rigid
transformation for each projection image j, by fitting the forward projection
of the 3-D reference marker position to the actual 2-D detected candidate
points.” Id. That is, Müller optimizes unknown parameters of transformation
matrix Mj through objective function (2). Id. Three-dimensional rigid
transformation Mj is used to compute a new calibration matrix that is used to
perform a motion-compensated reconstruction, as shown in equation (3). Id.
Thus, Müller’s motion correction method increases the similarity between a
calculated projection group and a measured projection group by minimizing
differences between forward projected pre-calibrated reference markers and
two-dimensional candidate points. Id.
Although Appellant fairly characterizes the teachings and suggestions
of Müller, Appellant’s arguments nonetheless fail to distinguish the claimed
invention’s increase of “a degree of similarity between the certain measured
projection group and a calculated projection group” from the three-
dimensional rigid transformation estimation algorithm of Müller. In
particular, although the Specification discloses the use of a normalized
gradient angle difference as the measure of similarity (see Spec. p. 12,
Appeal 2020-000086
Application 15/756,605

7

ll. 23–26, 29, Fig. 4), the Specification broadly discloses that “other
similarity measures can be used like a gradient correlation measure or a
pattern intensity measure . . . a sum of squared differences, et cetera” (id.
p. 12, ll. 26–29). Given this open-ended disclosure, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed “degree of similarity” encompasses the
difference between forward projected, three-dimensional reference markers
and actual two-dimensional detected candidate points. Müller, *2.
Appellant further argues that Müller’s “detected fiducial marker
position is not one or several measured projections.” Reply Br. 2. The
detected fiducial marker positions, however, are extracted through fast radial
symmetry transform processing of the two-dimensional projection images.
Müller, *1–2. Thus, they serve as reference points extracted from and
representative of the two-dimensional projection images. This enables
minimization of the difference (which thereby increases the similarity)
between the source two-dimensional projection images (i.e., measured
projections) and a calculated projection group represented by the forward
projected, pre-calibrated reference markers.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Müller and Barfuss,
and claims 5, 14, 15, and 20, which Appellant does not argue separately.
See, e.g., Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant’s remaining contentions, as they pertain to Kyme, Barfuss,
Van der Bom, Pelc, Quist, and Allmendinger, are not responsive to the
Examiner’s findings. See id. at 7–9. In particular, Appellant fails to identify
any deficiencies in Kyme. Id. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
additional 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.
Appeal 2020-000086
Application 15/756,605

8

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 14,
15, 20
103 Müller, Barfuss 1, 5, 14,
15, 20

1, 4, 6,
10–16, 19
103 Kyme, Barfuss 1, 4, 6,
10–16, 19

2, 17 103 Kyme, Barfuss,
Van der Bom
2, 17
3, 18 103 Kyme, Barfuss, Pelc 3, 18
7, 9 103 Kyme, Barfuss, Quist 7, 9
8 103 Kyme, Barfuss,
Allmendinger
8
Overall
Outcome
1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED