Rafael Wiemker et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2020

14362232 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 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.
14/362,232 06/02/2014 Rafael Wiemker 2011P02075WOUS 2711
24737 7590 04/29/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
LIU, ZHENGXI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2020 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 RAFAEL WIEMKER, THOMAS BUELOW, MARTIN
BERGTHOLDT, KIRSTEN REGINA MEETZ, and
INGER-CURT CARLSEN
____________________

Appeal 2019-000749
Application 14/362,232
Technology Center 2600
____________________

BEFORE JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 6, 7, and 11–15. Appellant has canceled claims 2–5 and 8–10. See
Appeal Br. 11–12. We have jurisdiction over the remaining claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6 (b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies
Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000749
Application 14/362,232

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
“combining a time-series of three-dimensional [3D] images into a single 3D
image” to allow for a comparative display of the change over time of
between a first and second time-series of 3D images. Spec. 2:16–24.
According to the Specification, it is known to combine a time-series of 3D
images into a single 3D image, but an issue is that the prior art is
“insufficiently suitable for intuitively displaying a first and second time-
series of 3D images to a user.” Spec. 2:1–11.
To address the identified issue, Appellant describes an embodiment
wherein the time-series of 3D images is combined using an encoding
function; the encoding function expressing how a change (to a volumetric
image, i.e., a voxel) over time is to be expressed. Spec. 3:3–10. Further, in
a disclosed embodiment, the combining of a time-series of 3D images uses
two encoding functions (a first and a second encoding function) in which
each encoding function expresses a change over time (to a voxel) different
from the manner the other encoding function expresses a change over time.
Spec. 4:9–18. As an example one encoding function may encode a rate of
the change over time and the second encoding function may encode a
magnitude of the change over time. Spec. 4:19–22. In the claimed
embodiment, when the combined 3D image(s) is (are) rendered, a color of
the combined 3D image(s) is modulated by a voxel value derived from the
first encoding function and an opacity of the combined 3D image(s) is
modulated by a voxel value derived from the second encoding function. See
claim 1; Spec. 5:24–27.
Appeal 2019-000749
Application 14/362,232

3
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
a processor for combining each of a first time-series of
three-dimensional [3D] images and a second time-series of 3D
images into respective single 3D images, using a first encoding
function and a second encoding function, the first encoding
function and the second encoding function being arranged for
encoding, in voxels of the respective single 3D images, a change
over time in respective co-located voxels of the first and second
time-series of 3D images, the first encoding function encoding
the change over time differently than the second encoding
function;
an input for obtaining the first time-series of 3D images
displaying a target structure over a first time span and the second
time-series of 3D images displaying the target structure over a
second time span,
wherein the processor is configured to (i) generate
a respective first and second intermediate 3D image from
the first and second time-series using the first encoding
function, (ii) generate a respective third and fourth
intermediate 3D image from the first and second time-
series using the second encoding function, and (iii) use an
image fusion process to combine the first and third
intermediate 3D image into a first 3D image and to
combine the second and fourth intermediate 3D image into
a second 3D image; and
a renderer for volume rendering, from a common
viewpoint, the first and second 3D images in an output image for
enabling a comparative display of the change over time of the
first and second time-series of 3D images, wherein the common
viewpoint comprises a consistent position and orientation of the
target structure for the first and second 3D images;
wherein the renderer is arranged for (i) modulating a
color of the first and second 3D images by a voxel value derived
from the first encoding function, (ii) modulating an opacity of the
Appeal 2019-000749
Application 14/362,232

4
first and second 3D images by a voxel value derived from the
second encoding function, (iii) rendering the first 3D image in a
first viewport in the output image, and (iv) rendering the second
3D image in a second viewport in the output image, for obtaining
a side-by-side rendering of the first and the second 3D images.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 11–15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over W. Wee, et al., Methodology for
visualization and perfusion analysis of 4D dynamic contrast-enhanced CT
imaging, Proceedings of the XVIth ICCR (2010) (“Wee”); Rottger (US
2008/0232666 A1; Sept. 25, 2008); and D. van Straaten, et al., Automatic
Registration of DCE-MRI Prostate Images for Follow-up Comparison, 25
IFMBE Proceedings, 1452–55 (O. Dössel & W.C. Schlegel eds., 2009)
(“van Straaten”). Final Act. 4–17.

ANALYSIS2
Appellant argues the cited references, alone or collectively, fail to
teach “a modulation and rendering of a color and opacity of voxel values
that are derived from two different encoding functions.” Appeal Br. 5–8;
Reply Br. 2–3. Further, Appellant asserts that because each of the two
encoding functions encodes a “change over time,” the color and opacity also
each represents a change over time. Appeal Br. 5–8; Reply Br. 2–3. More
particularly, Appellant argues that Rottger, as relied on by the Examiner,

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
June 5, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed November 7, 2018
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 13, 2018 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed January 8, 2018 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-000749
Application 14/362,232

5
teaches a color value that is a measure of the time value for the voxel and the
opacity is a measure of an extremal value for the voxel. Appeal Br. 6–7
(citing Rottger ¶¶ 7–11). Appellant asserts the measure of time (as
represented by the color value) is not a change over time as required by
Appellant’s claim. Appeal Br. 7. In addition, Appellant neither Wee nor
Rottger teaches fusing the outputs of the encoded time-series of 3D images.
Appeal Br. 7–8. As such, Appellant argues “neither Wee nor Rottger, alone
or in combination, discloses an image fusion and rendering wherein a color
and opacity each represent a different voxel value change over time, derived
from two different encoding functions.” Appeal Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner provides a comprehensive mapping of
findings to the claimed limitations. See Ans. 3–7. Additionally, the
Examiner finds Wee teaches a plurality of encoding functions. Ans. 7–8.
The Examiner notes that Appellant describes Wee as disclosing “a method
of segmenting vasculature and perfused tissue from four-dimensional (4D)
[(i.e., a time-series of 3D images)] perfusion Computed Tomography (pCT)
scans” and that the “method involves observing the intensity change over
time for a given voxel within the 4D pCT data set in order to create 3D
functional parameter maps of perfused tissue.” Ans. 5, 7–8 (citing
Spec. 2:1–9, emphasis omitted); see also Spec. 16:30–32. Further, the
Examiner notes the Specification states: “In these maps, a magnitude of the
following is indicated: best fit of intensity-time curves, difference between
the maximum and minimum intensities, and time to reach the maximum
intensity.” Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted, citing Spec. 2:1–9). The Examiner
finds this teaching of Wee corresponds with Appellant’s description of the
encoding functions that relates to “determining a maximum, a minimum or a
Appeal 2019-000749
Application 14/362,232

6
derivative of the time curve” including examples such as Time to Peak
(TTP) and Mean Transit Time (MTT). Ans. 8 (citing Spec. 11:16–25,
emphasis omitted).
Additionally, the Examiner finds Rottger teaches translating values
derived from encoding functions into color values and opacity values.
Ans. 8–9 (citing Rottger ¶ 35). In particular, the Examiner finds Rottger’s
disclosure of “colors assigned to the TTP values” teaches that colors are
derived from Time-to-Peak (TTP) encoding functions. Ans. 8–9 (citing
Rottger ¶¶ 7, 35). Further, the Examiner finds Rottger teaches an extremal
value (as represented by an opacity value, see Rottger, claim 1) may be a
maximum intensity projection over time (MIPt). Ans. 9 (citing Rottger ¶ 7).
The Examiner notes that Appellant identifies exemplary encoding functions
as determining a maximum, a minimum, or a derivative of a time curve,
which the Examiner finds corresponds to Rottger’s MIPt encoding function.
Ans. 9–10 (citing Spec. 11:16–25).
Appellant replies that the claim language explicitly recites that the
encoding functions encode “a change over time” in respective co-located
voxels of the first and second time-series of 3D images. Reply Br. 3
(emphasis omitted). Appellant argues the Time-to-Peak encoding function
of Rottger does not encode a change over time but rather is a time value—a
time lag between the time of injection of the contrast agent and the time of
maximum value. Reply Br. 3 (citing Rottger ¶ 7). In addition, Appellant
asserts the Examiner is reading limitations into Appellant’s claim; that is,
just because the Specification identifies TPP as an encoding function does
not mean it is an encoding function within the context of the claim language
(i.e., it is not an encoding function that encodes a change over time). Reply
Appeal 2019-000749
Application 14/362,232

7
Br. 3. Accordingly, Appellant argues “because TTP does not encode a
change over time, it fails to meet the recitations of claim 1.” Reply Br. 3.
We disagree. Rottger generally relates to “methods for visualizing a
sequence of tomographic volume data records for medical imaging so that at
least one temporal sequence of measured signal values is present for each
voxel of the object volume.” Rottger ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Rottger
describes the signal values correspond to recorded measured values from an
imaging system. Rottger ¶ 7. In a disclosed embodiment “at least one
extremal value and one time value are determined for each voxel from the
temporal sequence of the measured signal values.” Rottger ¶ 7. “The time
value describes a time lag of the extremal value or a value derived therefrom
compared to a fixed time during the recording of the volume data records.”
Rottger ¶ 7. Rottger describes the time lag between the time of injection of a
contrast agent and a maximum value as the time-to-peak (TTP). Rottger ¶ 7.
Rottger further describes the time value is represented by a color value for
the particular voxel. Rottger ¶ 10 (noting that “time values can also be
mapped onto the color values in a linear or nonlinear fashion”). “Different
TTP times are imaged in different colors so that the temporal progression of
the perfusion is apparent from the colors, that is to say the TTP value is
mapped onto the hue parameter in the HSV color space.” Rottger ¶ 34.
The Specification states “[f]or clarity reasons, . . . the term change
over time is otherwise used as referring to the changes within each of the
time-series of 3D images, e.g., to the perfusion and not to the change in
perfusion.” Spec. 7:31–33.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions (see, e.g., Reply Br. 3), we agree
with the Examiner that by a preponderance of evidence, Rottger’s TTP
Appeal 2019-000749
Application 14/362,232

8
function (i.e., corresponding to the claimed first encoding function) encodes
a change over time (consistent with Appellant’s Specification), in co-located
voxels of a time series of 3D images. Moreover, Rottger teaches modulating
a color of a 3D image by a voxel value derived from such an encoding
function. See Rottger ¶¶ 7, 10, 34, Fig. 2.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that there is no teaching “of fusing
the outputs of two different voxel encoding functions and modulating color
and opacity according to the respective functions” (see Appeal Br. 7–8), we
disagree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Rottger teaches “[w]hen
a voxel with color and opacity attributes is rendered to be displayed, the
color and opacity attributes are ‘fused’ for the voxel and shown on the
display.” Ans. 10–11 (citing Rottger ¶ 34, claim 1). In particular, Rottger
teaches that the outputs of the TTP and MIPt functions (which the Examiner
finds corresponds to the claimed first and second encoding functions) are
respectively assigned a color value and an opacity value. Rottger ¶ 34.
Further, we agree with the Examiner that Rottger’s transfer function
translates values derived from the encoding functions into color and opacity
values. Ans. 12 (citing Rottger, ¶ 35, Fig. 2).
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For similar reasons, we also
sustain the rejection of independent claim 14, which recites commensurate
limitations and was not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 9; see also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6, 7, 11–13, and 15, which depend directly or indirectly
therefrom and were not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 9; see also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-000749
Application 14/362,232

9
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, and 11–15
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 7, 11–
15
103(a) Wee, Rottger, van
Straaten
1, 6, 7, 11–
15

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)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED