Ex Parte Buelow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

13123042 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/123,042 04/07/2011 Thomas Buelow
24737 7590 09/29/2016
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.
2008P00794WOUS 4571
EXAMINER
PERLMAN, DAVIDS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 THOMAS BUELOW and RAFAEL WIEMKER1
Appeal2015-005353
Application 13/123,042
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 16-18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "imaging systems," such as the
"segmentation of tumors in images acquired from ... computed tomography
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. App. Br. 1.
2 After withdrawing certain rejections in the Answer, the Examiner indicated
claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 19 contain allowable subject matter. Ans. 3-
4. We address only the claims still rejected.
Appeal2015-005353
Application 13/123,042
(CT), magnetic resonance (MR), positron emission tomography (PET),
ultrasound, etc." Spec. 1 :2-11. Such imaging "can be tuned by a number of
parameters." Id. at 1: 11-12. "However, in many cases the parameters ...
are numerous and their meaning is not intuitive for the clinical user." Id. at
1 :21-24. The present application teaches having a "superparameter" where
"adjustment of a superparameter triggers automatic adjustment of image
segmentation parameters included in the superparameter (e.g., 'internal'
parameters)." Id. at 4:6-8; see generally 3:31-4:26, 2:8-13.
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A medical image segmentation system, including:
a display on a user interface on which an initial segmented
volume of interest is displayed to a user;
wherein the user interface comprises a user input tool with
which the user adjusts a weight of a superparameter of the
segmented voli1me of interest;
a processor configured to execute a parameter adjuster
component that adjusts a plurality of internal parameters in
accordance with the adjustment of the weight of the
superparameter to effect a change in the segmented volume of
interest; and
wherein the processor iteratively re-segments the volume
of interest using the plurality of adjusted internal parameters and
outputs the re-segmented volume to the display.
Rejections
Claims 1-5, 10, 12, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Higgins et al., Semi-automatic
construction of 3D medical image-segmentation processes, 2359 Proc. SPIE
Conf. on Visualization in Biomedical Computing 59 (1994) and Guan (US
200710172146A1; July 26, 2007). Final Act. 4; Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2015-005353
Application 13/123,042
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Higgins, Guan, and Guarnera et al. (US 2009/0010539 Al;
Jan. 8, 2009). Final Act. 10.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Higgins, Guan, Vuylsteke (US 7,298,373 B2; Nov. 20,
2007), and Lee et al. (US 2001/0048753 Al; Dec. 6, 2001). Final Act. 15.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Higgins, Guan, Vuylsteke, Lee, and Kalusche (US
2010/0128961 Al; May 27, 2010). Final Act. 16-17.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Higgins and
Guan teaches or suggests "the user interface comprises a user input tool with
which the user adjusts a weight of a superparameter of the segmented
volume of interest," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in concluding the combination of Higgins,
Guan, and Guarnera render claim 7 obvious?
3. Did the Examiner err in concluding the combination of Higgins,
Guan, Vuylsteke, Lee, and Kalusche render claim 17 obvious?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites "the user interface comprises a user input tool with
which the user adjusts a weight of a superparameter of the segmented
volume of interest."
The Examiner relies upon a combination of Higgins and Guan for
teaching this limitation. Final Act. 4-5. Higgins teaches "a graphical user-
interface (GUI) system for semi-automatic 3D radiological image analysis"
3
Appeal2015-005353
Application 13/123,042
that includes "a tool for inputting user selected values or weights." Final
Act. 4 (citing Higgins p. 61, FIG. 1 ). Guan teaches a "sigma value" of a
Gaussian smoothing filter, which the Examiner "considered to be a
superparameter that may be adjusted based on the level of desired
smoothness." Id. at 5 (citing Guan ii 40); Ans. 6. Guan further teaches
"25 coefficients which can all be considered to be internal parameters that
are computed as [a] function of the sigma superparameter." Final Act. 5
(citing Guan FIG. 5). "Since Higgins has a user interface that allows the
adjustment of other imaging processing functions, it would be obvious to
include an additional function that allows for Gaussian smoothing [as in
Guan] where the amount of smoothing can be adjusted." Ans. 6. "The
motivation for doing so is in order to allow the user to control the amount of
smoothing that is done to the object." Final Act. 5-6.
In addressing Guan, Appellants contend, "Nothing in the cited
passage mentions that the sigma value is adjustable, let alone in response to
user input." App. Br. 7. "This is why ... Guan stores a plurality of sigma
values in a database." Id. Appellants quote Guan as teaching:
the parameter storing unit stores therein imaging conditions
indicating an imaging state at the time of imaging of the image
information and sigma values, which are parameters in a
Gaussian function, in association with each other. The filter
determining unit specifies a sigma value associated with the
imaging conditions in the parameter storing unit.
Id. (quoting Guan ii 93).
However, Appellants have not sufficiently addressed the full scope of
the Examiner's rejection. Although paragraph 93 of Guan may set an initial
sigma value based on the "imaging conditions" at the time the picture was
4
Appeal2015-005353
Application 13/123,042
taken, nothing in that paragraph precludes adjusting the sigma value. 3 The
Examiner proposes combining Guan's sigma value with Higgins, which
teaches a user interface for changing input values, and found a person of
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a user interface for
adjusting the sigma value "in order to allow the user to control the amount of
smoothing that is done." Final Act. 5-6. For example, Guan teaches the
"magnitude of CT [sigma] represents the strength of noise removal. When CT
is large, the noise removal effect is large." Guan ,-i 35. Thus, as the
Examiner finds, a user adjusting the sigma value would have a predictable
result of increasing or decreasing noise removal. "[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Here, Appellants have not sufficiently addressed
the Examiner's combination.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2-5, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 18, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. See App. Br. 7-10; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 7
For claim 7, Appellants further contend the Examiner erred because
"[t]here is no indication in Guaranera [sic] that the filters are adjustable or
otherwise internal to a superparameter as set forth in the subject claim."
App. Br. 11. However, these features are recited in claim 1, not claim 7, and
the Examiner finds them taught or suggested by the references relied upon
3 Additionally, Appellants have not persuasively shown the recited adjusting
of the superparameter precludes specifying a sigma value from stored sigma
values, as disclosed in Guan.
5
Appeal2015-005353
Application 13/123,042
for claim 1, not Guarnera. Guarnera was relied upon for its lookup tables.
Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner correctly finds that "as disclosed in the
response for claims 1 and 12, sigma is an adjustable superparameter that
controls the amount of smoothness, and determines the internal parameters
of the convolution matrix." Ans. 7. Thus, Appellants have not sufficiently
addressed the Examiner's actual rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites "storing the final segmentation of the volume of
interest for further superparameter adjustment upon acceptance of the final
segmentation by the user" or alternately "reverting to the initial
segmentation of the volume of interest for further superparameter adjustment
upon rejection of the final segmentation by the user" (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies upon Kalusche for these limitations. Final Act.
17; Ans. 9. Kalusche teaches "the software in processor 103a can suggest a
segmentation of the overview image and ask the user to accept or reject it."
Kalusche ii 26. Thus, the Examiner finds "[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include options
to accept or reject the segmentation results as suggested by" the other prior
art and "[t]he motivation for doing so ... is in order to allow the user to
revert back to a previous segmentation if they are unhappy with the current
changes." Final Act. 17.
The Examiner further finds Kalusche teaches "random access memory
(RAM)" and "therefore the images will always be stored in the RAM even if
they are not always saved into a file." Ans. 9 (quoting Kalusche ii 20).
"Additionally it would be obvious to ... allow[] a user to save a current
6
Appeal2015-005353
Application 13/123,042
image to a file, where that current image would just be the result of any
previous steps including accepting or rejecting any changes." Id.
Appellants contend "Kalusche relates to automated generation of a
segmentation suggestion for user acceptance or rejection, but fails to teach
or suggest the claimed feature of storing a final segmentation upon user
approval for additional superparameter adjustment." App. Br. 15.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants further contend "there is not mention in
paragraph [0020] of a memory that stores a final segmentation upon user
acceptance thereof or reverting to an initial segmentation upon user rejection
of the final segmentation." Reply Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants have not
persuaded us against the Examiner's finding that an accepted segmentation
would be stored in RAM at a minimum, if not a file. Ans. 9. The Examiner
also finds a motivation for combining Kalusche with the other references "in
order to allow the user to revert back to a previous segmentation if they are
unhappy with the current changes." Final Act. 17. Appellants have not
sufficiently addressed this finding, nor explained what would happen upon
rejection if not a reversion, nor why it would be non-obvious to revert to a
prior segmentation upon rejection of changes. We note that "a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art" is insufficient to constitute a
persuasive argument. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 7.
7
Appeal2015-005353
Application 13/123,042
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 16-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8