Ex Parte Blezek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2013

11590949 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL JAMES BLEZEK, ILEANA HANCU,
MICHELLE DUMOULIN and RICHARD PHILIP MALLOZZI
____________

Appeal 2011-006894
Application 11/590,949
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE and
RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006894
Application 11/590,949

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daniel James Blezek et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-12. Claim 2 is
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for longitudinal magnetic resonance
(MR) imaging, comprising:
obtaining at least a first MR image using a
MR system;
selecting a region of interest within the at
least first MR image;
obtaining at least one longitudinal MR
image using the MR system; and
applying a registration relative to the first
MR image and the at least one longitudinal MR
image for repositioning the region of interest in the
at least one longitudinal MR image analogously to
a corresponding region of interest in the at least
first MR image.

PRIOR ART
Gupta US 6,292,683 B1 Sep. 18, 2001
Zhu US 6,728,424 B1 Apr. 27, 2004
Norfray US 7,289,840 B2 Oct. 30, 2007

GROUNDS OF REJECTION
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gupta.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gupta and Norfray.
Appeal 2011-006894
Application 11/590,949

3
3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gupta and Zhu.

OPINION
Anticipation
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8-12 as a group. See Br. 5-11.
We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim and claims 3, 5, 6 and
8-12 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner finds that Gupta discloses each and every limitation of
independent claim 1. See Ans. 3-4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
“[t]he ‘reference image’ of Gupta et al. is considered to be equivalent to a
first MR image and the subsequent images captured after the registration
image is considered to be ‘longitudinal images’ (see column 3, lines 33-38).”
Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that “the teaching of' ‘time series of MR images’ as
disclosed by Gupta is obtained by monitoring and recording from the same
scan over a period of time. Gupta do not teach that the ‘series of MR
images’ are derived by virtue of different scans.” Br. 9. Appellants’
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings because
claim 1 does not require that the first MR image and the at least one
longitudinal MR image be “derived by virtue of different scans.” It is well-
established that unclaimed features cannot be relied upon for patentability.
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). To the extent that Appellants
are reading limitations from the specification into the claims we note that
although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations
from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988
Appeal 2011-006894
Application 11/590,949

4
F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Appellants argue that Gupta’s disclosure of the application of
translation displacement “is not the same as the recitation of ‘applying a
registration relative to a first MR image and an at least one longitudinal MR
image for repositioning a region of interest in the at least one longitudinal
MR image to a region of interest in the first MR image’” because “Gupta
merely teaches applying translation displacement to align the MR images in
the series of MR images for automatic registration.” Br. 10. In response to
this argument the Examiner finds that “[w]hen images are registered
together, all of the images are repositioned analogously to each other, not
just to a single reference image. Inherently the subject matter of the images
is aligned, including the region of interest.” Ans. 8. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning noting that Appellants admit that Gupta
describes applying a registration to the MR images (see App. Br. 10).
Appellants argue that “Gupta does not teach the claimed . . . recitation
of ‘analogously repositioning of a region of interest in the at least one
longitudinal MR image to a region of interest in the first MR image’”
because “Gupta teaches accomplishing automatic registration.” Br. 10. As
discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that in Gupta
automatic registration inherently analogously repositions the region of
interest in the at least one longitudinal MR image to a region of interest in
the first MR image.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
claims 3, 5, 6 and 8-12 which stand therewith.

Appeal 2011-006894
Application 11/590,949

5
Obviousness
Rejection based on Gupta and Norfray
With regard to claim 4, Appellants argue that claim 4 is allowable
based on its dependency from claim 1 because “the secondary reference of
Norfray does not overcome these deficiencies of Gupta.” Br. 16. We have
found no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as discussed
supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.

Rejection based on Gupta and Zhu
With regard to claim 7, Appellants argue that claim 7 is allowable
based on its dependency from claim 1 because “the secondary reference of
Zhu does not overcome these deficiencies of Gupta.” Br. 17. We have
found no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as discussed
supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3-12 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).

AFFIRMED

mls