Ex Parte Bredno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2018

13881155 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/881,155 04/24/2013 Joerg Bredno
24737 7590 05/07/2018
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.
2010P00991WOUS 6890
EXAMINER
GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2018 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 JOERG BREDNO,
EBERHARD SEBASTIAN HANSIS,
and DAVID SOWARDS-EMMERD
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881,155
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to identifying and mitigating artifacts
in images. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
displaying at least one of projection data or reconstructed
image data having visually observable artifacts generated by a
scanning device, wherein the at least one of the projection data
or the reconstructed image data corresponds to an imaging
examination of an object or subject;
identifying one or more sample images other than of the
object or subject with known artifacts having artifacts similar to
the visually observable artifacts in the at least one of the
projection data or the reconstructed image data;
in response to identifying the one or more sample
images, displaying, concurrently with the at least one of the
projection data or the reconstructed image data having visually
observable artifacts, the identified one or more sample images
other than of the object or subject with known artifacts, and
information related to mitigating the visually observable
artifacts.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception to statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Leach et al. (US 2007 /0127809 Al;
published June 7, 2007) ("Leach"), Julia F. Barrett & Nicholas Keat,
Artifacts in CT: Recognition and Avoidance, 24 RadioGraphics, 1679-91
2
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
(2004) ("Barrett"), and C. Faloutsos, Efficient and Effective Querying by
Image Content, 3 J. Intel. Info. Sys., 231---62 (1994) ("Faloutsos").
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2003/0095697 Al; published May 22,
2003) ("Wood") and Barrett. 2
ANALYSIS
35 USC§ 101 Rejection
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347
(2014) identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed
subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. In the first step, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
In the second step of the Alice analysis, we "consider the elements of each
claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
In other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e.,
an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72-73).
2 In the header of the rejection, the Examiner only identifies Wood.
However, in the body of the rejection, the Examiner also relies on Barrett.
See Final Act. 10-15.
3
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
The Examiner determines the claims are "directed to displaying
images and information about images." Final Act. 2. The Examiner further
determines the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient
to add significantly more to the claim. Final Act. 3. Specifically, the
Examiner finds the claims require generic computer components and "[a Jn
idea of itself such as comparing information regarding sample images other
than of the object or subject does not amount to significantly more than a
user visually observing and comparing displayed data which can be done
using a book or paper displaying images and/or pen." Final Act. 3--4
Appellants' arguments are directed to the second step of the Alice
analysis. App. Br. 6-7. Specifically, Appellants argue "with the data
[having been] generated by a scanner, like the CT [(computer tomography)]
data of In re Abele, [684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982),] the claims should be
eligible subject matter." App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded. Appellants' claims recite displaying data,
comparing the data to sample images, and then displaying, along with the
data, the pertinent sample images along with additional information. E.g.,
App. Br. 19. By contrast, in Abele, the claims are "directed to an
improvement in CAT scan imaging technique whereby the body is exposed
to less radiation and, through use of a weighting function in the calculations
producing the image, the artifacts are eliminated." Abele, 684 F.2d at 904;
see also id. at 908. In Abele, the X-ray attenuation data is available "only
when an X-ray beam is produced by a CAT scanner, passed through an
object, and detected upon its exit" and "[ o ]nly after these steps have been
completed is the algorithm performed,[] and the resultant modified data
displayed in the requiredformat." Abele, 684 F.2d at 908 (emphasis added).
4
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
The Court found the improvement in Abele "resides in the application of a
mathematical formula within the context of a process which encompasses
significantly more than the algorithm alone." Abele, 684 F.2d at 909. There
is no corresponding algorithm or transformation of data in Appellants'
claims-all Appellants' claims do is display data.
Appellants further argue, "[a] human mind cannot generate projection
data or reconstructed image data. A human mind is not a scanning device."
App. Br. 6.
We note the claims do not recite "generat[ing] projection data or
reconstructed image." Rather, the claims recite only the display of data that
has already been generated or reconstructed. Claim 1 is a method claim that
does not positively recite any computer components. Appellants describe in
the Specification that "the sample images can be provided through a physical
picture album, book, binder, or the like, along with textual guidance." Spec.
5; see also Appellants' claim 5 ("wherein the sample images are displayed in
at least one of an interactive graphical viewer or a physical book.")
Therefore, under Appellants' own disclosure, method claim 1 can be
performed by a human being - for example, holding up (displaying) the
claimed image, identifying similar sample images from a physical book, and
holding up (displaying) the claimed image and the sample images (along
with the textual guidance) alongside each other.
Independent claims 14 and 25 merely implement this comparison and
display process on a computer. Rather than reciting additional elements that
amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea, the pending claims, at
best, add "memory," "processors," and "an interactive graphical viewer,"
i.e., generic components, which do not satisfy the inventive concept. See
5
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
Spec. 3 ("[a] computing system 118 such as a workstation, a computer or the
like facilitates evaluating the projection and/or image data," "computing
system 118 includes one or more processors 120 and computer readable
storage medium 122 (e.g., physical memory)," "storage medium 122
includes application memory 124 ... and data memory 126"), 4 ("interactive
graphical user interface (GUI) or viewer (e.g., via an applet or the like)").
"[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract
idea 'while adding the words "apply it"' is not enough for patent eligibility."
Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2358 (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in this
rejection. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
of claims 1-25.
35 US.C. § 103(a) Rejections
Claims 1, 14, and 25
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos teaches or suggests "identifying one or more sample
images other than of the object or subject with known artifacts having
artifacts similar to the visually observable artifacts in the at least one of the
projection data or the reconstructed image data" ("the identifying
limitation") and "in response to identifying the one or more sample images,
displaying, concurrently with the at least one of the projection data or the
reconstructed image data having visually observable artifacts, the identified
one or more sample images other than of the object or subject with known
6
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
artifacts," ("the displaying limitation") as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 14 and 25?
Appellants argue "Leach does not disclose artifacts in projection data
or image other than of the object or subject." App. Br. 7. Appellants further
argue "Barrett does not disclose, suggest, or imply displaying concurrently
an image with an observable artifact and a sample image (i.e. other than of
the object or subject with known artifact)." App. Br. 7. According to
Appellants, "[ t ]he image in Barrett with the known artifact is of the same
object or subject" and Barrett "describes a method that avoids or suppressing
artifacts based on a prior comparison of illustrated images of the same object
with and without an artifact." App. Br. 8. Appellants further argue
"Faloutsos does not cure the deficiencies of Barrett" and "Faloutsos does not
disclose images with observable or known artifacts." App. Br. 8.
Appellants' arguments do not persuasively address the Examiner's
findings. The Examiner relies on the combination of Barrett and Faloutsos
to teach or suggest the disputed identifying limitation, and on the
combination of Leach, Barret, and Faloutsos to teach or suggest the
displaying limitation. Final Act. 5---6. Appellants' arguments address the
references individually, rather than as relied upon by the Examiner.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Leach describes displaying an MRI image in an interactive display in
order to enable one to determine if a contrast/intensity change of a chosen
point with an image subject volume is a motion artifact. Leach i-fi-17, 12; see
7
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
also Leach Abstract. Barrett describes different types of artifacts,
mechanisms by which those artifacts are generated, methods employed by
CT equipment manufacturers to suppress artifacts, and techniques of artifact
avoidance available to the operator. Barrett p. 1679--80, Figs. 3-9. Barrett
depicts numerous examples of sample images with artifacts, including
original images as compared with a reformatted or reconstn1cted image.
E.g., Barrett Figs. 3-6, 7-9, 16, 22, 26--29. Faloutsos describes querying on-
line image databases using an image's content as the basis of the queries, for
example, "' [g]ive me other images that contain a tumor with a texture like
this one."' Faloutsos Abstract, p. 237 ("'query by example"'), Figs. 5-8.
We agree with the Examiner's findings that the combination of Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. See Final
Act. 4---6; Ans. 16--18.
Appellants further argue "the method of Barrett relies on detailed
technical knowledge of an operator through a method of reading the article
and testing, which teaches away from the recited claim limitations." App.
Br. 8. We disagree. As described above, claim 1 may be manually
performed by a human being through the use of a physical book. In claims
14 and 25, Appellants merely present the information in an interactive
graphical viewer in the same way Barrett presents the information in an
article. See Ans. 18.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1,
14, and 25, and for the same reasons, claims 2---6, 11, 13, 15-18, and 22-24,
which were not separately argued.
8
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
The Examiner also issued an alternative 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
over the combination of Wood and Barrett. See Final Act. 10-15.
Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 14, and 25 over Wood and Barrett. Accordingly, we summarily
sustain these rejections as to claims 1, 14, and 25, as well as claims 2-6, 11,
13, 15-18, and 22-24.
Claim 7
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos or the combination of Wood and Barrett, teaches or
suggests "obtaining data from at least one of the projection or reconstructed
image data indicative of a characteristic of the at least one of the projection
or reconstructed image data; and displaying only a sub-set of the sample
images filtered to correspond to the data," as recited in dependent claim 7?
The Examiner relies on Barrett to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations. Final Act. 7-8 (citing Figs. 22, 26-29). The Examiner finds
Barrett "display[ s] only a subset of the sample image" and
the claim recites obtaining data from at least one of the
projection or reconstructed image data indicative of a
characteristic, i.e.[,] helical artifacts of the abdomen, and
displaying only a subset of the sample images filtered to
correspond to the data, figures 26-29, which would therefore
display the images of the sample image filtered to correspond to
the data, i.e.[,] helical artifacts of the abdomen.
Ans. 19.
Appellants argue Barrett doesn't teach the disputed limitations for
similar reasons as set forth above. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants further argue
9
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
"[t]here is no filtering disclosed, suggested or implied" in Barrett. App. Br.
9-10.
We agree with Appellants. In Figures 26-29, Barrett discloses an
original CT image, as well as a reformatted CT image, of different parts of
the body. E.g., Barrett Fig. 28 (sagittal), Fig. 29 (sinuses). The Examiner
has not sufficiently explained how Barrett teaches or suggests "displaying
only a sub-set of the sample images filtered to correspond to the data."
The Examiner alternatively relies on paragraphs 62, 68, and 102-105
of Wood to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 13; Ans. 19.
The Examiner finds "Wood discloses a file type or name as a characteristic
of the image data, file lung, folder component and folder nodule reviewer"
and a "file type display allows the user to filter the files available in a
folder." Ans. 19. The Examiner further finds "paragraphs 0102 and 0105
... permit meaningful displays ... [of] body images of the same image
section shown." Id.
Appellants argue in Wood, "[ t ]he file type of the file name is not data
obtained from a projection or reconstructed image data indicative of a
characteristic of the image data. The file type or name are not obtained from
the image data and are not disclosed, suggested or implied as a characteristic
of the image data." App. Br. 10.
We agree with Appellants. Wood is generally directed to displaying
anatomical information generated by tomographic scanning of the body and
providing image annotation information, including displaying markers
representing different regions of interest. Wood Abstract, i-f 25. Wood
describes that a user can select and load a particular case for viewing by
selecting the appropriate file. Wood i-fi-167-68, Fig. 6. The files available
10
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
may be filtered. Wood i-f 68. Wood further describes that images in
corresponding windows, including images from different people, can be
compared simultaneously. Wood i-fi-1 101, 102. We do not see, and the
Examiner has not sufficiently explained, how these teachings in Wood teach
or suggest "displaying only a sub-set of the sample images filtered to
correspond to the data." Further, although paragraphs 102-105 of Wood
describe viewing a section of the image for display, the claim is directed to
filtering the sample images, not to filtering the content within an image.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred. We, therefore, do
not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Leach, Barrett,
and Faloutsos, as well as Wood and Barrett, of dependent claim 7. For the
same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
over Leach, Barrett, and Faloutsos, as well as Wood and Barrett of
dependent claims 8-10.
Claim 12
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos or the combination of Wood and Barrett, teaches or
suggests "wherein the information recommends processing the projection
data and reconstructing the processed projection data to generate second
reconstructed image data," as recited in claim 12?
The Examiner relies on pages 1688, 1690, and 1691 and Figure 28 of
Barrett to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 9; Ans. 21.
Appellants argue "Barrett does not disclose, suggest or imply a
recommended processing the projection data. Rather, to the contrary, Barrett
11
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
suggests that with today's multi-section scanners, the problem no longer
exists." App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded. Initially, we note the limitation in claim 12
constitutes non-functional descriptive material that may not be relied upon
for patentability, in that the function of displaying the information (claim 1)
would be performed in the same manner regardless of the type of
information presented (claim 12). See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008).
Regardless, we agree with the Examiner that Barrett teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. T'hroughout the discussion, Barrett depicts
numerous examples of original images as compared with a reformatted or
reconstructed image. E.g., Barrett Figs. 17, 27, 28. Barrett describes that
some artifacts "can be paiiially corrected by the scanner software," but
"careful patient positioning and the optimum selection of scan parameters
are the most important factors in avoiding irnage artifacts." Barrett p. 1691.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos, as well as Wood and Barrett, of dependent claim 12.
Claim 13
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos or the combination of Wood and Barrett, teaches or
suggests "wherein the information recommends repeating the imaging
examination under a different set of operating conditions," as recited in
claim 13?
12
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
The Examiner relies on pages 1684 and 1687 and Figure 18 of Barrett
to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 9; Ans. 22.
Appellants argue "Barrett discloses avoiding artifacts and does not
disclose, suggest or imply information recommending repeating an imaging
examination." App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded. As with claim 12, we note the limitation in
claim 13 constitutes non-functional descriptive material that may not be
relied upon for patentability, in that the function of displaying the
information (claim 1) would be performed in the same manner regardless of
the type of information presented (claim 13). See Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339;
Nehls, 88 USPQ2d at 1889.
Regardless, we agree with the Examiner that Barrett teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Barrett describes that '"it is essential to
position the patient so that no parts lie outside the scan field." Barrett p.
1687; see also Barrett p. 1691 (some artifacts "can be pmiially corrected by
the scanner software," but "careful patient positioning and the optimum
selection of scan parameters are the most important factors in avoiding
image artifacts). \Ve agree with the Examiner that such disclosure teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos, as well as Wood and Barrett, of dependent claim 13.
Claim 19
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos or the combination of Wood and Barrett, teaches or
13
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
suggests "wherein the information includes audible information," as recited
in claim 19?
The Examiner relies on page 232 of Faloutsos to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. Final Act. 1 O; Ans. 22-23.
Appellants argue "Faloutsos does not disclose information related to
mitigating the known artifacts. The synchronized delivery of data (video
and audio), is not reasonably related to mitigating artifacts." App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded. Faloutsos states "[w]e believe that ... [query
by image content] technology should be a part of future multimedia
databases that will contain text, sound, image and video." Faloutsos p. 232.
Appellants' arguments against Faloutsos do not address the combination of
references as relied upon by the Examiner. For example, the Examiner does
not rely on Faloutsos, but rather, Barrett, to teach or suggest information
related to mitigating known artifacts. See Final Act. 4---6. We agree with the
Examiner that Faloutsos' teaching of multimedia databases, as combined
with Barrett, teaches or suggests that the information includes audible
information.
With respect to Wood, the Examiner finds "[r]egarding claims 14-25,
they are rejected based upon similar rational[e] as above." Final Act. 15.
The Examiner relies on paragraph 7 6 of Wood, finding "a report button
captures the contents of the screen for a report in a variety of output options,
it is well known in the art that text, images and audio are well known output
options." Final Act. 14.
Appellants argue "Wood does not disclose, suggest or imply audible
information related to mitigating artifacts." App. Br. 15-16.
14
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Paragraph 7 6 of Wood
describes a reports button that opens a menu that "allows the user to select
one of a variety of output options into which he or she can move the image
on the display." See also Wood Fig. 8. Although we agree with the
Examiner that audio is a well-known output option, we do not see where
Wood teaches or suggests audible information. Rather, Wood describes an
output option where the user can move the image on the display.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
over Leach, Barrett, and Faloutsos, but do not sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Wood and Barrett, of dependent claim 19.
Claim 20
Issue 6: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos, or the combination of Wood and Barrett, teaches or
suggests "wherein the sample images are evaluated before the imaging
examination and used to obtain information relating to avoiding artifacts
with the imaging examination," as recited in claim 20?
The Examiner finds "Barrett discloses images before an imaging
examination in that the images are displayed in the article and evaluated to
identify the artifacts present in each image in the article, in order for the
reader to be able to avoid suppress artifacts." Ans. 23.
Appellants argue "Barrett suggests reading the article and taking a
test. Barrett does not disclose, suggest, or imply evaluating sample images
before an imaging examination." App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 9.
We are not persuaded. Barrett's objectives are described as
"[i]dentify[ing] the various types of artifacts that can appear in CT images,"
15
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
"[d]iscuss[ing] the reasons why these artifacts occur," and "[d]escrib[ing]
the methods of avoiding or suppressing artifacts available with modem CT
systems." Barrett p. 1679. Barrett provides numerous examples of sarnp1e
images with aii.ifacts, including original images as compared with a
reformatted or reconstructed image. E.g., Ban-ett Figs. 3----6, 7----9, 16, 22, 26----
29. Moreover, as described above, Appellants' Specification describes the
sample images and associated mitigating information may be provided in a
physical book. See Spec. 5.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos, as well as the rejection over Wood and Barrett, of
dependent claim 20.
Claim 21
Issue 7: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos or the combination of Wood and Barrett, teaches or
suggests "wherein the information is obtained through at least one of a key
word search of the sample images based on anatomy to be scanned or
scrolling through a set of sample images corresponding to the anatomy to be
scanned," as recited in claim 21?
The Examiner finds Figures 5-8 of Faloutsos "allows for scrolling
through the sample images." Ans. 23.
Appellants argue "[a] slider bar of images does not disclose, suggest
or imply a set of sample images corresponding to an anatomy to be
scanned." Reply Br. 10.
16
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
We are not persuaded. Faloutsos teaches querying by image content,
which may include medical images (p. 231 ), and displaying the results,
which allows for scrolling through the image results (Figs. 5-8). As
described above, Barrett teaches or suggests the claimed information. We
agree with the Examiner that Faloutsos, as combined with Barrett, teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
The Examiner further relies on paragraph 101 and claim 6 of Wood.
Ans. 23.
Appellants argue "[t]he disclosed operation of the windows does not
include, suggest or imply a set of images corresponding to an anatomy to be
scanned." Reply Br. 10.
We are not persuaded. Wood is a "system for displaying anatomical
information ... , such anatomical information generated by tomographic
scanning of the body." Wood i-f 25. Wood allows "the images can be
scrolled simultaneously via navigation scroll bar." Wood i-f 101; see also
Wood. Fig. 19. Based on this disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that
Wood teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Leach,
Barrett, and Faloutsos, as well as the rejection over Wood and Barrett, of
dependent claim 21.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-25 is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Leach, Barrett, and
Faloutsos of claims 1---6 and 11-25 is affirmed.
17
Appeal2017-009456
Application 13/881, 155
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Leach, Barrett, and
Faloutsos of claims 7-10 is reversed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Wood and Barrett
of claims 1---6, 11-18, and 20-25 is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Wood and Barrett
of claims 7-10, and 19 is reversed.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject all of the
pending claims.
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
18