Ex parte Aikawa et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 13, 2001

08390862 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 13, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SEIICHI AIKAWA, FUMIKO MATSUZAWA and MAYUMI TOMIKAWA
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24,
28 and 30-32, all of the pending claims.
The invention is directed to a common structure extraction apparatus. More
particularly, structures common to two three-dimensional structures formed by two
Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
2
sequenced point sets are extracted by relatively moving the two point sets in parallel and
by rotating in accordance with partial matching information to superpose the two point sets
on each other. A common portion length for pairs of points in each common portion of the
two point sets is calculated, distances between the points paired with each other in each
common portion are accumulated and a common structure of the two point sets is
extracted based on maximizing the common portion length and minimizing cumulative
distance.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A common structure extraction apparatus for extracting, from two point
sets of sequenced points, a set of points of a common portion between the
two point sets as a common structure between two three-dimensional
structures formed by the two point sets, comprising:
an entire structure superposition section for relatively moving the two
point sets in parallel and by rotating in accordance with partial matching
information for partial matching between the two point sets to superpose the
two point sets on each other;
a common portion length calculation section for calculating a number
of points paired with each other to form at least one common portion
between the two point sets superposed on each other by said entire
structure superposition section as a common portion length;
a cumulative distance calculation section for accumulating distances
between the points paired with each other to form the at least one common
portion between the two point sets superposed on each other by said entire
structure superposition section to obtain cumulative distance information for
each of the at least one common portion; and
Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
3
a common portion extraction section for extracting from the at least
one common portion between the two point sets an extracted common
portion representing a common structure, based on maximizing the common
portion length calculated by said common portion length calculation section
while minimizing the cumulative distance information calculated by said
cumulative distance calculation section.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Huang et al. (Huang) 5,058,200 Oct. 15, 1991
Eisenberg et al. (Eisenberg) 5,436,850 Jul. 25, 1995
(effective filing date Jul. 11, 1991)
Robb et al. (Robb) 5,568,384 Oct. 22, 1996
(filed Oct. 13, 1992)
Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28 and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Robb and Eisenberg with regard
to claims 1 and 31, adding Huang to this combination with regard to claims 5, 6, 12, 16,
20, 24, 28, 30 and 32.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse as it is our view that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter.
Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
4
The examiner cites various portions of Robb purporting to show extracting common
portions from two three-dimensional sets, superposing the two sets, calculating a number
of points paired to form a common portion between the two sets, and accumulating
distances between paired points. The examiner hedges on whether Robb provides for
extracting common portions with the greatest length but contends that Robb suggests
considering the greatest length “(which is considered as the greatest number of points -
claim 1, line 13) in the abstract, lines 15-16, by using a large number of starting points, and
where this is most desirable as noted in column 5, lines 12-13" [answer-page 5].
The examiner then notes that Eisenberg also provides for extracting a common
portion from two 3-D sets, superposing for partial matching, calculating a number of points
paired for a common portion where length is specifically noted.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to extract common
portions with the greatest length “since it is well known to extract common portions such as
residues...as taught by Eisenberg...because both Robb and Eisenberg both provide for
matching common portions...and because Eisenberg provides for the further advantage of
analyzing three-dimensional proteins” [answer-page 5].
Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
5
The examiner blends the teachings of Robb and Eisenberg together in some
manner but we are unclear as to the exact nature of the combination or of the reason that
would have led the artisan to make the combination, especially since Robb is directed to
accurate registration of biomedical images and Eisenberg is directed to identifying
proteins.
More importantly, we do not find every feature of independent claim 1 disclosed or
suggested by the applied references. The claim requires a calculation of a number of
points “paired with each other” and then distances “between the points paired with each
other” are accumulated.
The examiner contends that Robb discloses the calculation of a number of points
paired to form a common portion between the two sets and identifies column 4, lines 6-9,
and Figure 8, blocks 115, 119 and 131 as showing this feature. We have reviewed the
cited portions of the reference but fail to see the claimed limitation. The column 4 citation
recites a limited number of points uniformly sampled from the match contour data set at
115 and that only these points are used during image registration. The cited boxes in
Figure 8 merely describe sampling registration points, selecting a new starting point and
questioning whether there are more starting points.
Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
6
We fail to see how any of these cited portions of the reference provides for calculating
a number of points paired to form a common portion and then accumulating distances
between these paired points, as claimed.
We agree with appellants [principal brief-page 6] that Robb appears to be
measuring distances between sampled points to a surface of a graphical figure since the
data compared is only graphical. Therefore, it is unclear how the examiner is interpreting
the Robb disclosure to provide for “distances between the points paired with each other to
form the at least one common portion between the two point sets.” As appellants point out,
at page 8 of the principal brief, the instant claimed “invention calculates the distances
between discrete points in the data sets, i.e., a point-to-point calculation, not from one
point to a surface, as taught by Robb.”
Not claimed, but noted as a point of understanding, the data points in the instant
invention represent the arrangement of elements in a chemical substance, not just a three-
dimensional structure.
Furthermore, as appellants state, convincingly, instant claim 1 recites that the two
point sets are “sequenced points.” This is different from the uniformly sampled points
“used to register the match surface in the system taught by Robb...because
Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
7
when the match surface points are sampled in Robb..., the points are no longer in
sequence” [reply brief-page 5].
Robb does not provide for forming “at least one common portion between the two
point sets superposed on each other” and “maximizing the common portion length
calculated by said common portion length calculated by said common portion length
calculation section while minimizing the cumulative distance information.” The best that
can be said for the Robb disclosure is that it samples points on one surface and minimizes
the total distance between those points and another surface.
We also do not find the disclosure of Eisenberg to be of any help in providing for the
deficiencies of Robb. Eisenberg matches protein sequences but does not provide for the
specifically claimed paired points calculation and accumulation of distances between the
paired points, nor does Eisenberg extract a common portion “based on maximizing the
common portion length calculated by said common portion length calculation section while
minimizing the cumulative distance information calculated by said cumulative distance
calculation section,” as claimed.
Huang also does not provide for the deficiencies noted above with regard to
independent claim 1.
Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
8
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28 and 30-32 under
§ 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 1998-2378
Application No. 08/390,862
9
STAAS & HALSEY, L.L.P.
SUITE 500
700 ELEVENTH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001