Ex Parte Barley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201714342469 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/342,469 03/03/2014 Maya Ella Barley 2011P01090WOUS 8898 24737 7590 11/30/2017 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue GOLDEN, STEVE PETER Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2017 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): patti. demichele @ Philips, com marianne. fox @ philips, com katelyn.mulroy @philips .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAYA ELLA BARLEY, THUS ELENBAAS, and RAOUL FLORENT1 Appeal 2017-007027 Application 14/342,469 Technology Center 2100 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, HUNG H. BUI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 6, 9-13, and 16-20. App. Br. 2. Claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is said to be Koninklijke Philips N.V. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-007027 Application 14/342,469 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to annotating a medical image. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An annotating device for annotating a medical image, the annotating device comprising: a display configured to display an image of a tubular structure, and to display a graphical representation of a segmented portion of the tubular structure; a processor configured to generate a marker overlaid on the image of the tubular structure displayed on the display; and an interface configured to position the marker at one or more locations along the graphical representation to indicate one or more predetermined features of the tubular structure, respectively; wherein the graphical representation comprises an outline of the segmented portion displayed in combination with the image of the tubular structure; and wherein the marker is movable along the outline of the segmented portion to the one or more locations along the graphical representation. App. Br., Claims Appendix, 17. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 1-6, 9, 11-132, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over Goede (US 2006/0061595 Al, published Mar. 23, 2006). Final Act. 4-113. 2 We herein refer to “11-14” as “11-13” since claim 14 was cancelled. 3 We refer to the Final Office Action mailed Apr. 19, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Oct. 13, 2016 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Jan. 27, 2017 (“Ans.”); Reply Brief filed Mar. 27, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appeal 2017-007027 Application 14/342,469 Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Goede and Viswanathan (US 2008/0287909 Al, published Nov. 20, 2008). Final Act. 12. Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Goede and Dawson (US 2004/0234933 Al, published Nov. 25, 2004). Final Act. 12-15. Claims 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Goede and Rosenberg (US 2004/0066369 Al, published Apr. 8, 2004). Final Act. 15-18. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments alleging error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 7-12, Reply Br. 4-9. We are unpersuaded of error. We adopt the Examiners findings that claim 1 is anticipated by Goede. Final Act. 5-6, Ans. 3-6. First Argued Limitation: “an outline of the segmented portion displayed in combination with the image of the tubular structure'''’ Appellants argue Goede does not describe “a display configured to display an image of a tubular structure, and to display a graphical representation of a segmented portion of the tubular structure ... wherein the graphical representation comprises an outline of the segmented portion displayed in combination with the image of the tubular structure.” App. Br. 8-9, Reply Br. 4-8. 3 Appeal 2017-007027 Application 14/342,469 The Examiner finds Goede describes the argued limitation and cites, inter alia. Figures 5 A and 5B of Goede and paragraph 70. See Ans. 3. Figures 5A and 5B are depicted below: FIG. 5A FIG. SB In the Reply, Appellants assert: The Examiner’s Answer newly cites para. [0070], which introduces FIGs. 5A and 5B, saying in part that FIG. 5A shows all of the annotations for the image, while FIG. 5B shows only the first two annotations for the image. Significantly, these “annotations” in FIGs. 5A and 5B are all acronyms (e.g., Posterior Cranial Fossa (PCF), Foramen Magnum (FM), Middle Cranial Fossa (MCF), etc.) that respectively label portions of the image, and are not “graphical representations” (especially not 4 Appeal 2017-007027 Application 14/342,469 graphical representations of a segmented portion of a tubular structure, as recited in claim 1). Reply Br. 5 (underlining omitted). Appellants do not otherwise rebut the Examiner’s finding with respect to these figures. Appellants’ response that the annotations in these figures “are all acronyms ... that respectively label portions of the image, and are not ‘graphical representations’” overlooks the outlines that accompany the acronyms. Id., Goede Figs. 5A and 5B. Hence, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s finding that “a display configured to display an image of a tubular structure, and to display a graphical representation of a segmented portion of the tubular structure ... wherein the graphical representation comprises an outline of the segmented portion displayed in combination with the image of the tubular structure” reads on at least Figures 5A and 5B of Goede. Ans. 3; 5 (bolding omitted). To whatever extent Appellants argue that the claim does not read on these figures because the depicted structures are not “tubular structures,” we are unpersuaded of error. Appellants do not provide sufficient persuasive argument or evidence to convince us that a reasonable construction of “tubular structures” excludes, for example, the Posterior Cranial Fossa (PCF), Foramen Magnum (FM), and Middle Cranial Fossa (MCF), all of which are depicted, along with an “outline of the segmented portion displayed in combination with the image of the tubular structure.” Further, even if the Posterior Cranial Fossa (PCF), Foramen Magnum (FM), Middle Cranial Fossa (MCF) are excluded from a reasonable construction of “tubular structure,” we would remain convinced that Goede nevertheless describes “a display configured to display ... an outline of the 5 Appeal 2017-007027 Application 14/342,469 segmented portion displayed in combination with the image of the tubular structure.” We find no persuasive argument or evidence that Goede’s described capabilities are limited only to particular structures (e.g., the Middle Cranial Fossa of Figs. 5A and 5B) and not others (e.g., the Carotid Artery of Fig. 2), which are unquestionably “tubular structures.” Second Argued Limitation: “[<2] marker is movable along the outline of the segmented portion to the one or more locations along the graphical representation''’ Appellants also argue Goede does not describe movable markers as claimed. App. Br. 9-11, Reply Br. 8-9. We are unpersuaded of error and adopt the Examiner’s finding that markers “movable along the outline of the segmented portion to the one or more locations along the graphical representation” reads on at least the description at Goede’s paragraph 105. Final Act. 6, Ans. 6 (bolding omitted). Specifically, Goede describes “each annotation [may be] easily manipulated (moved, sized, deleted) independently from other annotations.” Goede ^ 105. With respect to Goede’s description at paragraph 105, Appellants argue it “appears to be describing the ability to move entire annotations with respect to one another, and not moving a marker along a particular graphical representation” and it “apparently refers to movement within the image (e.g., with respect to other annotations), and not movement along the outline of the segmented portion along the graphical representation.” App. Br. 10. See Reply Br. 8-9. We find these arguments unpersuasive because Goede’s description of annotations (i.e., markers) being movable with respect to one another includes their being “movable along the outline of the segmented 6 Appeal 2017-007027 Application 14/342,469 portion to the one or more locations along the graphical representation,” as claimed. In view of the foregoing, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Goede. Because Appellants argue claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 based on claim 1 (see App. Br. 12-14, Reply Br. 9-10), we also find no error in the rejections of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 9-13, and 16-20. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation