Ex Parte Allain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

12376308 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/376,308 05/13/2009 Pascal Allain
24737 7590 08/18/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2006P01837WOUS 5602
EXAMINER
HUYNH, PHONG KY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@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 PASCAL ALLAIN,
OLIVIER GERARD, and
KARL THIELE,
Appeal2013-009484
Application 12/376,308
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-13. Br. 3. Claim 14 has been canceled. Br. 18
(Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-009484
Application 12/376,308
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to an ultrasound imaging system,
and to a corresponding method." Spec. 1:4--5. Claims 1 and 10 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is illustrative of the claims
on appeal:
1. An ultrasound image acquisition system, comprising:
A controller for controlling the following
operations:
Acquisition at a first image rate (IR 1) of a
first sequence of ultrasound images (II) of an
organ (LV),
Acquisition at a second image rate (IR2) of a
second sequence of ultrasound three-dimensional
images (I3D 1) of a sub-volume (S VI) covering a
part of interest (RI/VI) in said first sequence (II),
Acquisition at the second image rate (IR2)
of a third sequence of ultrasound three-
dimensional images (I3D 2) of a reference sub-
volume (S VO), and
ii~ comparator for comparing said second and third
sequences of three-dimensional images (I3D 1, I3D 2).
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Sano
Gerard
Scampini
Cai
Noble
US 5,615,680 Apr. 1, 1997
US 2003/0006984 Al Jan. 9, 2003
US 2004/0193042 Al Sept. 30, 2004
US 2006/0034513 Al Feb. 16, 2006
US 7,043,063 Bl May 9, 2006
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sano and Scampini.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sano, Scampini, and Gerard.
2
Appeal2013-009484
Application 12/376,308
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sano, Scampini, and Nobel.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sano, Scampini, and Cai.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 10--13
as unpatentable over Sano and Scampini
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, and 5-7 together. Br. 8-10. Appellants
also argue claims 10-13 together. Br. 10-11. We select independent claims
1 and 10 for review with dependent claims 3, 5-7, and 11-13 standing or
falling with their respective parent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
Claim 1 includes the limitation of acquiring second and third
"sequence[ s ]" of an ultrasound image. The Examiner relies on the primary
reference to Sano as disclosing this limitation. Final Act. 2-3 (identifying
Sano's "ROia and ROib" stating "ROis are second and third sequences, Fig
8, col 10 lines 20-25"); see also Ans. 10. The Examiner reiterates this
identification in stating "given the teachings of Sano of measuring regions of
interest (interpreted as 'sequences')" in answer to Appellants further
arguments. Ans. 9. Hence it is understood that the Examiner correlates the
claimed second and third sequences to Sano's ROia and ROib as depicted in
Figure 8 of Sano. See also Ans. 8 and 9 referencing Figure 14 also depicting
ROia and ROib.
Appellants dispute that Sano shows two sequences of interest since
"Fig. 8 is a single frozen image." Br. 9. The Examiner responds stating,
"the ROI's can be considered sequences as they are shown to be used in
3
Appeal2013-009484
Application 12/376,308
real-time applications." Ans. 8 referencing Sano 13:66 to 14:4 and Figs. 14,
15; see also Ans. 9 referencing Sano 11:41---63 and 13:1-8. Sano does state
that the designated shapes/positions (ROia and RO lb) are shown "in the
frozen image" of Figure 8 (i.e., a frozen image taken from real-time
measurements, see supra). Sano 10:20-23. However, we note that claim 1
is directed to the "[a]cquisition" of multiple images, not their display.
Appellants do not explain how Sano' s illustration of a "frozen image" of a
real-time application (and accompanying written description) fails to
disclose the acquisition of the recited sequences.
Appellants also contend, "[t]his is not a use of first and second
sequences of three-dimensional images as called for by amended Claim 1."
Br. 9. The Examiner is not relying on Sano's ROI images as disclosing
"three-dimensional images" as claimed, but instead for disclosing the
acquisition of two distinct ultrasound images (i.e., "a second sequence" and
"a third sequence" of an ultrasound image). Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner
acknowledges that Sano' s images are not three-dimensional. Final Act. 3;
Ans. 8. For this teaching, the Examiner finds, "2D and 3D images in
ultrasound are well known expedients in the field, as shown by Scampini."
Final Act. 4. Base on this finding, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to have made Sano's images "three-dimensional images,
or sub-volumes to view the object of interest as desired, such as [for]
obtaining better spatial data with three-dimensional images (volumes)."
Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 9-10. Appellants do not indicate how the
Examiner's finding, reasoning, or conclusion regarding the use of three
dimensional images (instead of Sano' s two-dimensional images) is in error.
4
Appeal2013-009484
Application 12/376,308
Accordingly, Appellants' focus solely on Sano's disclosure, 1 without
addressing the stated reason to render Sano' s images in three dimensions for
"better spatial data" is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants further state, "[n]o images of a reference sub-volume are
acquired by Sano." Br. 9. Appellants' Specification provides guidance as to
the claim term "a reference sub-volume." Appellants' Specification states,
"[d]etermination of another sub-volume S VO which is taken as a reference
as illustrated in Figure 15." Spec. 13:9-10. Appellants' Specification
provides no other guidance as to any other requirements for this claimed
"reference sub-volume (S VO)." Hence, "a reference sub-volume" is
understood to mean "another sub-volume." Accordingly, Appellants do not
explain how the other of Sano' s two "sequences" is not "a reference sub-
volume" as this term is employed. Appellants' contention is not persuasive
of Examiner error.
Appellants also contend, "[t]here is no comparator for comparing
second and third sequences of three-dimensional images as called for by
amended Claim 1." Br. 9. On this point, Appellants fail to indicate how
Sano' s teaching of "velocity analyzer 26 [which] analytically compares
velocity at ... ROia and ROib" fails to satisfy this requirement. Final Act. 3
(referencing Sano 10:48---67, 11: 14--18).
Furthermore, and still addressing Sano, Appellants contend "[t]here
are no image rate differences between [a] different [] first image sequence
and two other image sequences as called for by Claim 1." Br. 9. However,
as evident from the Final Office Action, the Examiner relied on Scampini for
this teaching since the Examiner acknowledges that Sano fails to disclose
1 "Sano does not use three-dimensional images." Br. 9.
5
Appeal2013-009484
Application 12/376,308
that the first sequence, as compared to the second and third sequences, "are
acquired at different image rates." Final Act. 3.
Regarding Scampini, Appellants contend that "Scampini et al. do not
cure these deficiencies" (i.e., the deficiencies noted above regarding Sano).
Br. 9. For example, Appellants contend that in Scampini, "there is no
acquisition of a third sequence of three-dimensional images at the rate of a
second sequence as called for by amended Claim 1." Br. 10. As indicated
supra, the Examiner finds (a) this "third sequence" is taught by Sano; (b)
rendering this third sequence in three dimensions is obvious as doing so is a
"well known expedient[] in the field;" and ( c) Scampini is cited for the
"rate" limitation. Final Act. 2--4.
In summary, the Examiner states that Appellants "attempt[] to attack
the references individually by stating what they lack, but does not address
the combination as a whole." Ans. 9. See also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references").
Accordingly, and in view of the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, and 5-
7.
Claim 10
Independent method claim 10 tracks the limitations discussed supra
regarding claim 1. Appellants repeat arguments already discussed. See Br.
11. For example, Appellants contend that neither Sano nor Scampini
suggest that a sequence "should be of a reference sub-volume." Br. 11.
However, Appellants do not indicate how the other of Sano's two ROI's is
6
Appeal2013-009484
Application 12/376,308
not a "reference sub-volume" in view of the guidance provided by
Appellants' Specification for this claim term. See supra. Appellants also
contend, "[t]he references do not show or suggest that acquisition of second
and third sequences should be at the same rate and different from the rate of
the first sequence." Br. 11. However, Appellants do not explain how the
Examiner's reliance on Sano for disclosing first, second, and third references
is in error, or how the Examiner's reliance on Scampini for disclosing their
acquisition at different rates is in error. See Final Act. 2--4. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 10,
and dependent claims 11-13 for the reasons stated.
The rejection of (a) claims 2 and 4 as unpatentable over Sano, Scampini,
and Gerard; (b) claim 8 as unpatentable over Sano, Scampini, and Nobel;
and, (c) claim 9 as unpatentable over Sano, Scampini, and Cai
The Examiner relies on the additional teachings of Gerard, Nobel, and
Cai for disclosing the additional limitations recited in these dependent
claims (each of which depend, directly or indirectly, from claim l ).
Appellants do not explain how the Examiner's reliance on these additional
references for the teachings of these additional limitations is in error.
Instead, Appellants contend that each of the additionally cited references do
"not show or suggest" the limitations "as called for by amended Claim 1."
Br. 11-13. In short, Appellants contend that these dependent claims are
allowable because of their "dependency" upon claim 1. Br. 12-13.
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive the Examiner erred in
rejecting dependent claims 2, 4, 8, or 9. We sustain the rejection of these
claims.
7
Appeal2013-009484
Application 12/376,308
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8