Ex Parte Brunner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2014

12128086 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte THOMAS BRUNNER and
JOHN CHRISTOPHER RAUCH
________________

Appeal 2012-010897
Application 12/128,086
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS,
N. WHITNEY WILSON Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a method for obtaining three-dimensional (3D)
rotational image acquisition data and using it to reconstruct a 3D image of a
region of interest in an examination subject. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for acquiring a (three dimensional) 3D rotational image
acquisition and 3D image reconstruction of an examination subject,
comprising the steps of:
placing an examination subject, having a radio-opaque object therein,
in an initial position on a support, said examination subject having a region
Appeal 2012-010897
Application 12/128,086

2
of interest therein exhibiting an anatomical geometry when said examination
subject is in said initial position;
selectively orienting a c-arm x-ray imaging system, having a 3D
acquisition axis relative to the examination subject to selectively set a
position and orientation of said 3D acquisition axis that does not orient the
region of interest perpendicularly to said radio-opaque object with respect to
said 3D acquisition axis, while maintaining said anatomical geometry
substantially unchanged; and
operating said c-arm x-ray imaging system to obtain 3D rotational
image acquisition data of the examination subject containing said region of
interest with said 3D acquisition axis in said position and orientation; and
reconstructing a 3D image from said 3D rotational image acquisition
data, wherein said radio-opaque object does not introduce metal artifact that
occludes said region of interest in said 3D image.

The References
Fadler US 2005/0094770 A1 May 5, 2005
Schreck US 6,952,097 B2 Oct. 4, 2005
Takemoto (as translated) JP 5-176921 A July 20, 1993
Grebner1 DE 10 2005 012 700.2 Mar. 18, 2005
Hey (as translated) DE 10 2005 004 502 A1 Aug. 10, 2006

Diana D. Cody, AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT:
Image Processing in CT, 22 RADIOGRAPHICS1255-68 (2002).

The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
3 over Grebner in view of Hey, claim 4 over Grebner in view of Hey and
Fadler, claims 5 and 6 over Grebner in view of Hey, Fadler and Schreck,
claim 7 over Grebner in view of Hey and Takemoto and claim 8 over
Grebner in view of Hey, Takemoto and Cody.

1 Examiner relies upon US 2008/0240363 A1 (published Oct. 2, 2008) as an
English language equivalent of Grebner (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2012-010897
Application 12/128,086

3
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 3-15).
Although additional references are applied to most of the dependent claims,
the Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of those claims (App. Br. 15). We therefore limit our
discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim.
Claims 2-8 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2007).
Hey discloses a c-arm 3D tomographic imaging device having
maximum degrees of freedom with respect to pivoting or shifting the axis of
rotation, including changing the axis of rotation during the taking of an
image sequence (¶¶ 9-10; Figure). The flexibility permits highly radiation
absorbing objects, such as metal objects like dental fillings, to be kept out of
the optical path, thereby preventing formation of image-degrading
measurement artifacts such as metal artifacts (¶¶ 19-20).
The Appellants argue that Hey merely discloses prevention of the
formation of metal artifacts as a goal to be achieved, but provides no
guidance as to how to achieve any goal other than by adjusting the cone
beam (App. Br. 5, 10; Reply Br. 3-5). 2
“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). In
making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the

2 The Appellants do not cite to any portion of Hey which discloses use of
cone beam adjustment to prevent formation of measurement artifacts.
Appeal 2012-010897
Application 12/128,086

4
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Hey’s use of maximum pivoting and shifting flexibility of the c-arm
to keep metal objects out of the optical path, thereby preventing formation of
image-degrading metal artifacts (¶¶ 9-10, 19-20), would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to orient
the c-arm such that, without moving the examination subject, image-
degrading metal artifacts from a metal object in the examination subject are
prevented.
Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3 over Grebner in
view of Hey, claim 4 over Grebner in view of Hey and Fadler, claims 5
and 6 over Grebner in view of Hey, Fadler and Schreck, claim 7 over
Grebner in view of Hey and Takemoto and claim 8 over Grebner in view of
Hey, Takemoto and Cody are affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is 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

lp