KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 24, 2021

2020002198 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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.
15/517,998 04/10/2017 FENG HUANG 2014P00847WOUS 9187
24737 7590 08/24/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
WU, MING HAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2021 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 FENG HUANG and ZHIGANG WU

Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON J. CHUNG, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Final
Rejection of claims 10–20 and 22–24, which constitute all pending claims.
See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest is
Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a magnetic resonance imaging system for
imaging a subject by a multi-shot imaging. Abstr.; Spec.2 2:23–4:22; Fig. 1.
Claim 10, reproduced below, is representative3 of the claimed subject
matter (emphases added):
10. A magnetic resonance imaging system for imaging a subject by
a multishot imaging, comprising:
a first imaging unit configured to generate a plurality of folded
images from MR raw data corresponding to a plurality of MR shots of
the subject over time, wherein each folded image of the plurality of
folded images is generated from a subset of the MR raw data;
a deriving unit configured to derive magnitudes of pixels of each
folded image;
a detecting unit configured to detect an inter-shot motion of the
subject during the multi-shot imaging based on similarity
measurements of any two folded images of the plurality of folded
images, wherein the detecting unit comprises a first determining unit
configured to derive the measured similarities based on the derived
magnitudes of the plurality of pixels; and
a reconstruction unit configured to reconstruct an image of the
subject excluding artifacts caused by the detected inter-shot motion.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claim App.).

2 Specification, filed April 10, 2017 (“Spec.”).
3 Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 6–12) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of obviousness
rejection of claims 10–20 and 22–24 on the basis of representative claim 10.
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

3
REFERENCES
Prior art relied upon by the Examiner:
Name Reference Date
Sun et al. US 2005/0240099 Al Oct. 27, 2005
Stergiopoulos et al. US 2004/0102695 Al May 27, 2004
Akcakaya et al. US 2012/0099774 Al Apr. 26, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 10–20 and 22– 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sun, Stergiopoulos, and Akcakaya. Final Act. 4–
20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief. In our analysis below, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis.
The § 101 Rejection of claim 22
The Examiner determines claim 22 is directed to non-statutory subject
matter because it is a claim to a program. Final Act. 3. Appellant does not
address this rejection in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief.
Claim 22 is set forth below (emphasis added).
22. A computer program product comprising computer
software instructions for imaging a subject by multi-shot
imaging which, when executed by a computer, cause the
com[p]uter to perform steps comprising:
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

4
generating a plurality of folded images from the MR raw
data corresponding to a plurality of shots of the subje[c]t,
wherein each of the plurality of folded images is generated from
a subset of the MR raw data:
deriving magnitudes of pixels of the folded images,
respectively;
measuring similarities of any two folded images of the
plurality of folded images using the derived magnitudes of the
plurality of pixels;
detecting an inter-shot motion of the subject during the
multi-shot imaging based on the measured similarities; and
reconstructing a MR image of the subject based on MR
raw data without the detected inter-shot motion of the subject.

Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims App.).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.5
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (brackets in original) (citing Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)). This threshold analysis of whether a claim is
directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, is referred to as “Step l” in
the USPTO patent-eligibility inquiry4 under § 101.

4 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance”)
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01- 07/pdf/2018-
28282.pdf). In response to received public comments, the Office issued
further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised
Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the
“October 2019 Update”) (available at
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

5
As discussed in MPEP § 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four
Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-10.2019]
I. THE FOUR CATEGORIES

35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that
Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent:
processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
As explained by the courts, these “four categories together
describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a
claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory
categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of
§ 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In
re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).

Non-Limiting examples of claims that are not directed to
any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such
as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer
program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when
claimed as a product without any structural recitations[.]

The Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 as non-statutory under § 101 is
persuasive, and is not disputed by Appellant. Claim 22 is directed to “A
computer program product comprising computer software instructions” and
includes no structural recitations.
Therefore, based on the record before us and applicable law, we
summarily sustain the rejection of claim 22.
The § 103 Rejection of claims 10–20 and 22–24

https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).

Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

6
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Sun,
Stergiopoulos, and Akcakaya teaches the limitations of independent claim
10, and provides reason to combine the teachings to result in claim 10. Final
Act. 4–7 (citing Sun ¶¶ 5, 7, 10, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21–29, 37, 38, 41–47, Figs.
1; Stergiopoulos ¶¶ 31, 62, 63, 82–84, 88, 93, 109, Abstr., Fig. 3; and
Akcakaya ¶¶ 25–30, 49, Abstr., Fig. 1).
In particular, the Examiner finds Akcakaya teaches “the measured
similarities are derived based on the derived magnitudes of the plurality of
pixels.” Id. at 7 (citing Akcakaya ¶¶ 25–30, 49, Fig. 1). The Examiner finds
“Magnetic resonance image system comprises application executed by the
processor that configures to cluster Images into similarity clusters based on
the highest degree “magnitudes” of similarity of blocks of the acquired
Image to the reference Image.” Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding the combination of the
cited references teaches the limitations of claim 10, and the combination of
Sun and Akcakaya is improper because it would change the principle of
operation of the Sun perfusion imaging system. Appeal Br. 6–10; Reply Br.
4–7. Appellant argues Akcakaya teaches reconstructing an image of a
subject from undersampled image data and uses the structure and anatomical
features in the target image being reconstructed to improve the
reconstruction. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Akcakaya ¶ 8, Abstr.). Appellant
argues Akcakaya does not teach addressing motion or movement of the
subject between image acquisitions, providing folded images, or deriving
measured similarities based on the derived magnitudes of pixels as required
by claim 10 (emphasis added). Id. According to Appellant:
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

7
For example, paras. [0025] to [0030] of Akcakaya et al.,
relied on by the Final Office Action, describe producing
similarity clusters in an image using a block matching technique.
Generally, the block matching technique includes defining a
reference image block to which other image blocks are matched,
and comparing distance between the reference image block and
each of the other image blocks. See, e.g., FIG. 2; paras [0023]-
[0026]. The image blocks contain similar image characteristics,
such as anatomical characteristics. See para. [0018]. When the
distance is less than a specified threshold, the corresponding
image block is considered "similar" to the reference image block
and is then added to the similarity cluster of the reference image
block. See, e.g., para. [0026]. Determining similarity between
image blocks based on a threshold distance does not teach or
suggest measured similarities based on the derived magnitudes
of a plurality of pixels, as recited in claim 1. So, the Final Office
Action's statement that "cluster[ing] [i]mages into similarity
clusters based on the highest degree ‘magnitudes’ of similarity
of blocks of the acquired image to the reference image" (see Final
Office Action, p. 7) is not an accurate description of Akcakaya
et al., as magnitudes, and more particularly magnitudes of pixels,
are not considered.

In response, the Final Office Action simply reiterates that
the magnetic resonance image system of Akcakaya et al.
“cluster[s] images into similarity clusters based on the highest
degree ‘magnitudes’ of similarity of blocks of the acquired image
to the reference image.” See Final Office Action, p. 23. Again,
identifying shorter distances (less than a specified threshold)
between image blocks and a reference image block does not
teach deriving measured similarities based on the derived
magnitudes of pixels.

Id. at 8–9.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s proposed combination of Sun and
Akcakaya is improper because there is no rational basis for combining the
teachings and no reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Id. at 9.
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

8
According to Appellant, using Akcakaya image block matching would
change the principle of operation of Sun and render Sun unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. Id. (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA
1959); MPEP §§ 2143.01(V), 2142.01 (VI) I)). Appellant argues
Sun et al. is directed to perfusion MR images for the heart and/or
kidney. Therefore, as a region of interest (ROI) is imaged over
time, the images change due to the wash-in and wash-out of the
contrast agent, regardless of movement of the subject.
Accordingly, “[s]tandard block matching techniques do not
work because the intensity at the same physical location changes
across the MR image sequence due to the wash-in and washout
of the contrast agent.” See Sun et al., para. [0025] (emphasis
added). In comparison, Akcakaya et al. is dependent on matching
image blocks, as discussed above.
Id. at 9.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Akcakaya discloses magnetic
resonance image system comprises application executed by the processor
that configures to cluster [I]mages into similarity clusters based on the
highest degree “magnitudes” of similarity of blocks of the acquired image to
the reference image. Ans. 22–23 (citing Akcakaya ¶¶ 25–30, 49, Fig. 1).
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument that “Determining
similarity between image blocks based on a threshold distance does not
teach or suggest measured similarities based on the derived magnitudes of a
plurality of pixels, as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 23 (referring to Appeal Br.
8–9). The Examiner finds that Akcakaya teaches similarities of specified
threshold distance between two blocks are measured and these are
similarities based on the derived magnitudes of a plurality of pixels. Id. at
24 (citing Akcakaya ¶¶ 25, 26). The Examiner finds, when the distance in
d(XrefiX), “magnitudes of a plurality of pixels”, is less than a specified
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

9
threshold, the two blocks are considered similar. Id. The Examiner finds
measured similarities based on the derived magnitudes of a plurality of
pixels can be read on Akcakaya in paragraphs 25 and 26. Id.
Regarding the combination of Sun and Akcakaya, the Examiner finds
Akcakaya performs block processing based on its comparison to neighboring
location, not the same physical location due to the wash-in and wash-out of
the contrast agent. Id. at 26 (citing Akcakaya ¶¶ 25–30, 49). The Examiner
finds Sun teaches standard block matching techniques do not work because
the intensity at the same physical location changes across the MR image
sequence due to the wash-in and wash-out of the contrast agent. Id. (citing
Sun ¶ 25). The Examiner finds Akcakaya teaches matching technique to its
neighboring location instead of performing matching in the same physical
location so there is no wash-in and washout in the same physical issue for
Akcakaya to combine to Sun to reduce operation time, and there is no
change the principle of operation issue as claimed by the Appellant. Id.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Sun in view of Stergiopoulos with the measured
similarities are derived based on the derived magnitudes of the plurality of
pixels as taught by Akcakaya. Id. The motivation for doing is to reduce
operation time as taught by Akcakaya. Id. (citing Akcakaya ¶¶ 3, 7).
In the Reply Brief, regarding the Examiner’s finding that the
“measured similarities based on the derived magnitudes of a plurality of
pixels can be read as disclosed by Akcakaya,” Appellant argues claim 105
does not recite ‘“magnitudes of similarity’ among image blocks.” Reply Br.

5 Appellant recited claim 1 in the Reply Brief. The context indicates claim
10 was intended and Appellant’s argument is applicable to claim 10.
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

10
5 (referring to Ans. 23). Appellant argues claim 10 recites magnitudes of
actual pixels of the folded image. Id. According to Appellant
Akcakaya et al. does not discuss pixels or pixel magnitudes, and
more specifically, does not discuss deriving measured
similarities of two folded images based on pixel magnitudes. For
instance, the “image blocks” on which the Final Office Action
relies are described as NbxNb image blocks, one corner of which
corresponds to one voxel at location (Xo, Yo, Zo) of the image.
The localized distance measure d(Xref, X), mentioned by the
Examiner’s Answer, is determined using the difference between
an NbxNb reference image block Xref and another NbxNb image
block X. The Exam[in]er’s Answer appears to be saying that the
length of the localized difference between two such image blocks
(a corner of which corresponds to a voxel) teaches a magnitude
of a pixel. Again, there is no mention of a pixel, and to the extent
points in the NbxNb image blocks are considered to be pixels
(which they apparently are not), a distance between a point in
one image block and a point in another image block does not
teach a “magnitude” of either of such points.

Id. at 5–6.
Regarding the combination of Sun and Akcakaya, Appellant argues
Sun et al. performs registration on a sequence of MR
images having pixels with different intensities by selecting a
reference frame from the image sequence, cropping a region of
interest (ROI) from the reference frame, tracking the ROI
across the image sequence, segmenting the ROI in the reference
frame, and performing an affine registration for the ROI. See,
e.g., para. [0020]. Meanwhile, Akcakaya et al. is directed to
reconstructing an image from undersampled image data by
collecting similar image blocks into similarity clusters. See,
e.g., Abstract. Thus, for Akcakaya et al. to be applicable to Sun
et al., the sequence of MR images would need to be
undersampled in the first place (e.g., changing the principle of
operation). There is no teaching or suggestion in Sun et al. that
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

11
the sequential frame registration would even be possible using
such undersampling/reconstruction technique.

Id. at 7.
As discussed below, on the record before us, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments because the Examiner provides insufficient evidence
to support the finding that the combination of Sun and Akcakaya teaches
disputed limitations of claim 10. For example, the disputed limitation
“derive the measured similarities based on the derived magnitudes of the
plurality of pixels.” Appellant’s arguments are reasonable and are not
addressed fully by the Examiner.
Akcakaya’s teaching of determining similarity between image blocks
based on a threshold distance does not teach or suggest measured similarities
based on the derived magnitudes of a plurality of pixels, as recited in claim
10. The Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence to show that
Akcakaya’s teaching would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
as meeting this disputed limitation. Nor does the Examiner present
persuasive evidence that this disputed limitation should be interpreted more
broadly than its ordinary meaning. In particular, the limitation recites
“magnitudes of a plurality of pixels” and the record before does not support
a finding that this is taught by Akcakaya.
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

12
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Our reviewing court
states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted). However, the broadest reasonable
interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. In re Smith
Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The correct inquiry in
giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification is “an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the
inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation
that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” Id. at 1382–83 (quoting In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Accordingly, the Examiner does not provide prima facie support for
the rejection. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to conclude the
Examiner errs in rejecting representative claim 10, and claims 11–20 and
22–24 as obvious.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of representative
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sun, Stergiopoulos, and Akcakaya.
We also do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 11–20 and 22–24.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being patent-
ineligible is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10–20 and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sun, Stergiopoulos, and Akcakaya is reversed.
Appeal 2020-002198
Application 15/517,998

13
Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitation is dispositive of
the rejections made, we do not address additional arguments raised by
Appellant.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
22 101 Eligibility 22
10–20,
22–24
103(a) Sun, Stergiopoulos,
Akcakaya
10–20,
22–24
Overall
Outcome
22 10–20,
23–24
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any 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).
AFFIRM IN PART