Ex Parte CallegariDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201412843635 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ANDRES C. CALLEGARI ________________ Appeal 2012-007977 Application 12/843,6351 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1–54. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on December 4, 2014. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to processing, model extraction, model refinement and graphical rendering of data representing volumes. Spec. 1:12–14. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Landmark Graphics Corporation, which is a subsidiary of Halliburton Energy Services Inc. App. Br. 5. Appeal 2012-007977 Application 12/843,635 2 1. A computer-implemented method for identifying irregular volumes represented within volumetric input data, comprising the steps of: inputting one or more volume datasets comprising a multiplicity of three-dimensional cells; establishing criteria describing properties of an irregular volume of interest; processing each volume dataset, the processing comprising the steps of: traversing from cell to cell of the volume dataset until a seed cell is identified having properties matching the criteria, the identified seed cell thereby belonging to an identified irregular volume; identifying cells related to the seed cell by a predetermined relationship as belonging to the identified irregular volume; storing in a data structure associated with each identified cell belonging to the identified irregular volume, attribute data describing properties of the identified cell, the attribute data including an indication of the location of the identified cell with respect to a predetermined frame of reference and including an identifier uniquely identifying the identified cell as belonging to the identified irregular volume; and rendering at least a portion of the one or more volume datasets representing at least a portion of the identified irregular volume, the irregular volume portion comprising at least one internal cell and at least one boundary cell. REFERENCES Cline US 4,710,876 Dec. 1, 1987 Hornbuckle US 6,012,018 Jan. 4, 2000 Robert A. Drebin et al., Volume Rendering, COMPUTER GRAPHICS vol. 22, no. 4, 65–74 (1988) (hereinafter “Drebins”). T. Todd Elvins, A Survey of Algorithms for Volume Visualization, COMPUTER GRAPHICS vol. 26, no. 3, 194–201 (1992) (hereinafter “Elvins”). Appeal 2012-007977 Application 12/843,635 3 T. Y. Lee et al., Interactive voxel surface rendering in medical applications, COMPUTERIZED MEDICAL IMAGING AND GRAPHICS vol. 23, 193–200 (1999) (hereinafter “Lee”). REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1–4, 7–13, 28–31, and 34–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Drebin and Elvins. Ans. 5–15. Claims 5, 6, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Drebin, Elvins, and Hornbuckle. Ans. 15–16. Claims 14–22 and 41–49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Drebin, Elvins, and Lee. Ans. 16–20. Claims 23–27 and 50–54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Drebin, Elvins, and Cline. Ans. 21–22. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1–4, 7–13, 28–31, and 34–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) A. The claimed limitation “irregular volume portion comprising at least one internal cell and at least one boundary cell” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds Drebin teaches rendering images of volumes and coloring both the interior and the boundary, which the Examiner maps to Appeal 2012-007977 Application 12/843,635 4 “irregular volume portion comprising at least one internal cell and at least one boundary cell.” Ans. 7 and 22–23 (citing Drebin, Abstract and Figs. 4a– 4d). In addition, the Examiner finds Elvins teaches tumors are volume rendered using a marching cubes surface fitting (SF) algorithm, which the Examiner maps to “irregular volume portion comprising at least one internal cell and at least one boundary cell.” Ans. 9 and 24. Appellant contends Drebin fails to teach an “irregular volume portion comprising at least one internal cell and at least one boundary cell” because Drebin merely teaches inputting one volume and outputting another volume (App. Br. 19–20) and Drebin does not provide any descriptive support for Figures 4a–4d (Reply Br. 5). Moreover, Appellant contends Elvins fails to teach an “irregular volume portion comprising at least one internal cell and at least one boundary cell” because Elvins refers to a marching cubes algorithm, which is a surface fitting algorithm to approximate an iso-surface. App. Br. 20–21; Reply Br. 5. We disagree with Appellant. The cited portions of Drebin relied upon by the Examiner teach rendering images of volumes and coloring both the interior and the boundary. See Drebin, Abstract; Ans. 7. In addition, the cited portions of Drebin relied upon by the Examiner teach a semi-transparent soft tissue volume (i.e., irregular volume) and an opaque bone tissue volume (i.e., irregular volume) (see Drebin, Figs. 4a–4d; Ans. 22–23). Drebin’s textual description explicitly teaches coloring both the interior and boundaries of a volume and Drebin’s figures illustrate a three-dimensional volume with interior portions and boundaries colored (Ans. 7 and 22–23), which meets the claimed limitation an “irregular volume portion comprising at least one internal cell and at least one boundary cell.” Appeal 2012-007977 Application 12/843,635 5 The cited portions of Elvins relied upon by the Examiner teach volume rendering tumors using a marching cubes SF algorithm through all of the interior cells. See Elvins, pp. 196 and 198; Ans. 7. Elvins’ teaching of volume rendering of tumors (i.e., irregular volume) using the marching cubes algorithm through all of the interior cells (id.) means the image of the cells of the tumor (i.e., interior cells and boundary cells) are differentiated from the image of the cells that are not part of the tumor, which meets the claimed limitation an “irregular volume portion comprising at least one internal cell and at least one boundary cell.” Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s finding that Drebin and Elvins teach “irregular volume portion comprising at least one internal cell and at least one boundary cell.” B. Teaching away argument The Examiner finds Elvins teaches tumors are volume rendered using a marching cubes surface fitting (SF) algorithm. Ans. 24. Moreover, the Examiner finds Drebin teaches an improvement over calculating a threshold. Ans. 25–27. Appellant contends Elvins and Drebin teach away from the claimed invention because Elvins teaches a surface approximation using a threshold value and Drebin teaches thresholding techniques should be avoided and volumetric properties are lost when volumes are reduced to surfaces. App. Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 6–8. We disagree with Appellant. As for Appellant’s contention that Drebin teaches thresholding techniques should be avoided and Elvins teaches a thresholding teachnique Appeal 2012-007977 Application 12/843,635 6 (App. Br. 22), the cited portions of Drebin relied upon by the Examiner teach an improvement over calculating a threshold (see Drebin, pp. 66–68; Ans. 24), which means that Drebin is improving upon thresholding rather than disparaging thresholding. Accordingly, Drebin and Elvins do not teach away from the claimed invention because Drebin improves upon thresholding. As for Appellant’s contention that Drebin teaches volumetric properties are lost when volumes are reduced to surfaces (App. Br. 22), the cited portions of Elvins relied upon by the Examiner teach tumors are volume rendered using a marching cubes surface fitting (SF) algorithm (see Elvins, pp. 196 and 198; Ans. 24). Put another way, Elvins’ SF algorithm is a step in the process of generating a three-dimensional volumetric image of a tumor. Id. Similarly, as discussed supra, Drebin also teaches generating a three-dimensional volume. Accordingly, Drebin and Elvins do not teach away from the claimed invention even though Drebin teaches volumetric properties are lost when volumes are reduced to surfaces. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 28. Because Appellant has provided similar arguments against the rejections of claims 2–4, 7–13, 29–31, and 34–40, these claims fall with claims 1 and 28 for the same reasons as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Rejection of Claims 5, 6, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Elvins teaches tumors are volume rendered using a marching cubes surface fitting (SF) algorithm. Ans. 30–31. Moreover, the Appeal 2012-007977 Application 12/843,635 7 Examiner finds Hornbuckle produces computer images of three-dimensional volumes. Ans. 30. Appellant contends Hornbuckle and Elvins teach away from the claimed invention because Hornbuckle is directed to performing iso-surface processing and Elvins is directed to generating surface representations. App. Br. 23. We disagree with Appellant. As discussed supra, the cited portions of Elvins relied upon by the Examiner teach a SF algorithm is a step in the process of generating a three- dimensional volumetric image of a tumor. The cited portions of Hornbuckle relied upon by the Examiner teach generating computer images of three- dimensional volumes (see Hornbuckle, Abstract; Ans. 30), which is similar to Elvins’ three-dimensional volumetric image of a tumor and Drebin’s three-dimensional image of a bone. Because Drebin, Elvins, and Hornbuckle all teach three-dimensional volumes rather than mere surfaces, the references do not teach away from the claimed invention. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 32, and 33. Rejection of Claims 15 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Elvins teaches identifying a seed cell and Lee teaches semi-boundary nodes in a list are mapped to a table. Ans. 8 and 17 (citing Lee, Fig. 1). Appellant contends Lee fails to teach “including storing information identifying the seed cell in a seed cell table” because a first SB (semi-boundary) node is not a seed cell. App. Br. 24. We disagree with Appellant. The portions of Elvins relied upon by the Examiner teach a corner- value straddling a threshold value that marches through the nearby cells and Appeal 2012-007977 Application 12/843,635 8 determines the interior cells and boundary cells (see Elvins, 196 and 198; Ans. 8–9), which meets the claimed limitation “identifying the seed cell.” In addition, the portions of Lee relied upon by the Examiner teach semi- boundary nodes in a list are mapped to a table (see Lee, Fig. 1; Ans. 17), which meets the claimed limitation storing information in a table. Thus, the combination of Elvins and Lee teaches “including storing information identifying the seed cell in a seed cell table.” Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 42. Rejection of Claims 23–27 and 50–54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Elvins teaches a SF algorithm is a step in the process of generating a three-dimensional volumetric image of a tumor and Cline teaches displaying three-dimensional images associated with a given voxel. Ans. 32. Appellant contends Cline and Elvins teach away from the invention because Cline is directed to generating surface approximations and Elvins is directed to generating surface representations. App. Br. 25. We disagree with Appellant. As discussed supra, the portions of Elvins relied upon by the Examiner teach a SF algorithm is a step in the process of generating a three- dimensional volumetric image of a tumor. The portions of Cline relied upon by the Examiner teach displaying three-dimensional images associated with a given voxel (see Cline, Abstract; Ans. 32), which is similar to Elvins’ three-dimensional volumetric image of a tumor and Drebin’s three- dimensional image of a bone. Because Drebin, Elvins, and Cline all teach Appeal 2012-007977 Application 12/843,635 9 three-dimensional volumes rather than mere surfaces, the references do not teach away from the claimed invention. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23–27. Because Appellant has provided similar arguments against the rejections of claims 50–54, these claims fall with claims 23–27 for the same reasons as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED lv Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation